Joe Biden became the 46th President of the United States on Wednesday, declaring that "democracy has prevailed." He swore the oath of office to take the helm of a deeply divided nation and inheriting a confluence of crises arguably greater than any faced by his predecessors.

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION	DOMAIN
LIVE UPDATES: Joseph Biden sworn in as 46th President of the United States	foxnews.com
Watch the moment Joe Biden was sworn in	cnn.com
Biden plans to block drilling in ANWR among his first acts as president	adn.com
Our new president Joe Biden Has just been inaugurated	apnews.com
Joe Biden sworn in as nation's 46th president: 'Democracy has prevailed'	nola.com
Hear Lady Gaga sing the National Anthem at Joe Biden's inauguration - CNN Video	cnn.com
Joe Biden Officially Sworn in as 46th President of the United States	newsweek.com
'This is America's day': Biden inaugurated as 46th president, Harris sworn in as vice president	usatoday.com
No Large Protests In D.C., On Morning Of Biden's Inauguration	npr.org
President Joe Biden vows to be “a president for all Americans”	axios.com
Biden and Harris sworn in during historic inauguration	cnn.com
Biden sworn in as president of the United States	politico.com
Joe Biden is sworn in as president: 'Democracy has prevailed'	cnbc.com
Joe Biden The President	whitehouse.gov
Joe Biden takes control of @POTUS Twitter account after being sworn in as 46th president	usatoday.com
Joe Biden has been sworn in as the 46th President of the United States	apnews.com
Biden sworn in as nation's 46th president	thehill.com
Joseph R. Biden is officially sworn in as the 46th president of the United States of America	bloomberg.com
Klobuchar: Biden’s inauguration is the day ‘our democracy picks itself up’	politico.com
Readers write to Joe Biden ahead of the inauguration	washingtonpost.com
Biden's inauguration is a promise for a better, more normal America	businessinsider.com
Joe Biden sworn in as the 46th President of the United States	msnbc.com
Joe Biden sworn in as president of the United States	bostonglobe.com
Joe Biden sworn in as president and is addressing nation	news.sky.com
Joe Biden has been sworn in as the 46th president of The United States	nytimes.com
Joseph R. Biden Jr. is officially the President of the United States.	apnews.com
Biden sworn in as U.S. president	nationalpost.com
Joe Biden Sworn In As 46th President Of The United States	huffpost.com
Joe Biden sworn in as 46th president of the United States	axios.com
Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46th president, pleads for unity in inaugural address to a divided nation	washingtonpost.com
Empty streets, thousands of troops in Washington as Biden becomes U.S. president	reuters.com
Biden sworn in as U.S. president	reuters.com
Joe Biden is officially president. Here’s what he wants to do in office.	vox.com
Inauguration 2021: Joe Biden sworn in as president, Donald Trump leaves D.C. early (live updates)	oregonlive.com
Biden sworn in as 46th president of United States	independent.co.uk
Photos: The inauguration of Joe Biden	cnn.com
President-elect Joe Biden's Cabinet picks, top-level appointees: Full list	abc7ny.com
Joe Biden sworn in as 46th president of the United States	theguardian.com
Biden Inaugurated as the 46th President Amid a Cascade of Crises	nytimes.com
Joe Biden Sworn In As President Of The United States	buzzfeednews.com
Joe Biden to be sworn in as 46th president of the United States	cbc.ca
Donald Trump leaves letter for Joe Biden ahead of inauguration	usatoday.com
The real reason Trump doesn't want to attend Biden's inauguration	macleans.ca
Biden sworn in as president, calls on Americans to 'end this uncivil war' of political division	nbcnews.com
Biden sworn in on family Bible his son Beau used	thehill.com
President Biden's inaugural address: Watch speech video, read transcript from Inauguration Day 2021	abc11.com
President Biden Posts First Tweet as @POTUS: 'No Time to Waste'	variety.com
Hall of Presidents closed for refurbishment; Biden figure to be added - Orlando Sentinel	orlandosentinel.com
Conservative Garth Brooks Fans Are Angry He's Playing Biden's Inauguration. They Don't Know Garth. Right wing fans are calling for a boycott of the country singer. They're willfully ignoring his history with politics.	esquire.com
Biden’s inauguration was enough to make Trump furious	independent.co.uk
Must-see moments of the inauguration of Joe Biden	cnn.com
Joe Biden Directly Appeals to Trump Supporters, Pledges to Be President for All Americans	newsweek.com
Watch President Joe Biden's full inauguration speech	foxla.com
QAnon believers are realizing their entire conspiracy was a hoax as Biden is sworn in	theweek.com
World leaders congratulate Biden on becoming president	thehill.com
Trudeau, party leaders extend congratulations to new U.S. President Joe Biden	cbc.ca
Biden inauguration: 'A step forward' after 'bumpy period' - Johnson	bbc.com
Here's The Whole Poem 22-Year-Old Amanda Gorman Read At Biden's Inauguration	buzzfeednews.com
Amanda Gorman stole the show at Biden's inauguration: Meet the 22-year-old poet laureate who gave a historic 5-minute speech that's gone viral	businessinsider.com
U.S. President Joe Biden expected to revoke Keystone pipeline permit today	thestar.com
How world leaders are reacting to Joe Biden's inauguration	reuters.com
28 Photos That Show The Differences Between Trump And Biden's Inaugurations	buzzfeed.com
GOP senators praise Biden's inauguration speech	thehill.com
Goodbye Trump, Hello Biden: America welcomes a new president	nbcnews.com
Donald Trump leaves letter for Joe Biden ahead of inauguration	amp.usatoday.com
Bill Clinton appears to fall asleep during Joe Biden’s inauguration speech	nypost.com
President Joe Biden’s Plea for America: ‘End This Uncivil War’	thedailybeast.com
China sanctions Pompeo, O'Brien, Azar and other Trump administration officials after Biden inauguration	cnbc.com
Bill Clinton appears to fall asleep during Joe Biden’s inauguration speech	nypost.com
President Biden Will Extend Student Loan Payment Freeze Through September 30	npr.org
Trump leaves White House hours before Biden's inauguration: 'Have a good life'	abcnews.go.com
As Joe Biden is inaugurated, a uniformed man kneels silently at the grave of his son Beau	usatoday.com
Joe Biden’s unique Inauguration Day, in photos	vox.com
Good luck, President Biden	washingtontimes.com
Biden begins term with a bold immigration bill and big plans to dismantle Trump's legacy - President Joe Biden to issue 17 executive actions on COVID, immigration, climate change, racial justice and more	salon.com
‘It’s Over’: Devastated QAnon Believers Grapple With President Joe Biden’s Inauguration	huffpost.com
How ultra-right news channels OANN and Newsmax covered Biden’s inauguration - The channel’s anchors and guests repeatedly told viewers that Mr Trump had lost unfairly	independent.co.uk
‘Trumplicans’ greet Donald Trump in South Florida after snub of Joe Biden inauguration	miamiherald.com
These climate activists expect a lot from President Biden and aren't afraid to make that clear	cbsnews.com
Biden's inauguration was a Frederick Douglass dream made real. We should be proud.	businessinsider.com
Amazon offers to help U.S. with vaccine in letter to President Biden	reuters.com
Syria sends first message to President Biden: Withdraw troops, stop stealing oil	newsweek.com
For immigrants in Chicago, a sign of ‘relief’ as Joe Biden is sworn in as president	chicago.suntimes.com
Joe Biden is the first US president to call out white supremacy in inaugural address	qz.com
Full text: Joe Biden inauguration speech transcript	politico.com
Immigration reforms proposed by President Joe Biden stand to benefit over 200,000 Massachusetts residents, families	masslive.com
What President Biden Inherits	factcheck.org
Just Some Very Funny And Good Tweets About Biden's Inauguration	buzzfeednews.com
Inaugural Address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.	whitehouse.gov
Clyburn says ex-President George W. Bush told him he's 'the savior' for endorsing Biden	postandcourier.com
Sen. Ted Cruz brought back his 'Come and Take It' mask for Biden's inauguration	chron.com
QAnon followers struggle to explain Biden inauguration	thehill.com
Warnock and Ossoff sworn in to Senate to give Biden and Democrats a majority	vox.com
A locked-down capital celebrates Biden’s inauguration and Trump’s departure	washingtonpost.com
President Biden says Trump wrote him a very generous letter	reuters.com
President Biden rejoins the Paris Climate Agreement	independent.co.uk
‘It’s Over’: Devastated QAnon Believers Grapple With President Joe Biden’s Inauguration	m.huffpost.com
President Biden says Trump wrote him a very generous letter	reuters.com
US President Joe Biden signs series of orders, including rejoining of Paris climate accord	p.dw.com
President Joe Biden rejoins the Paris climate accord in first move to tackle global warming	cnbc.com
New Radicals to Reunite for First Time in 22 Years for Biden Inauguration Parade	rollingstone.com
President Biden says Trump wrote him a very generous letter	reuters.com
President Biden’s international restoration project has begun	vox.com
Biden returns US to Paris climate accord hours after becoming president - Biden administration rolls out a flurry of executive orders aimed at tackling climate crisis	theguardian.com
Stock market scores trifecta of record high closes as Biden becomes 46th U.S. president	marketwatch.com
Biden extends a hand to the world on first day as president by rejoining Paris climate accord and WHO, while revoking Trump's travel ban	businessinsider.com
'No Plan, No Q, Nothing': QAnon Followers Reel as Biden Inaugurated	usnews.com
Stocks Close On Record Highs After Biden Inauguration	npr.org
Clyburn: Former President Bush called him a ‘savior’ for boosting Biden	dallasnews.com
President Biden rejoins the Paris climate change agreement. Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris agreement. What happens next?	vox.com
Ted Cruz gets demolished for posting videos gushing over celebrities from Biden inauguration - Texas senator heavily criticised after his role in opposing president’s win just weeks earlier	independent.co.uk
Biden Bets on Unity - The new president called for comity. Can the country heed it?	nytimes.com
Biden revokes presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline expansion on 1st day	globalnews.ca
Joe Biden Is Finally, Indisputably, President Now	gq.com
Biden became president at noon despite taking oath early, constitutional experts say	washingtonpost.com
Biden inauguration marks shift in scattered COVID-19 response	thehill.com
QAnon believers are in disarray after Biden is inaugurated	edition.cnn.com
Chief Acevedo says now-President Biden secretly visited HPD officer after 2019 shooting	click2houston.com
'No plan, no Q, nothing': QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated	reuters.com
Amanda Gorman recited powerful poem The Hill We Climb at Joe Biden's inauguration, here's the full transcript	abc.net.au
Rep. Clyburn reveals what George Bush said about Donald Trump and Joe Biden at inauguration	cnn.com
'A new day in America': Arizona's politicians react to Biden-Harris inauguration	azcentral.com
Budowsky: Democracy won, Trump lost, President Biden inaugurated	thehill.com
‘Virus’, ‘Riotous’, ‘Folks’: The historic words in Biden’s inauguration speech	washingtonpost.com
As Biden urges unity, Newsmax host calls Inauguration speech very dark and divisive	newsweek.com
President Joe Biden Announces Acting Federal Agency Leadership	whitehouse.gov
President Joe Biden's inauguration speech in full: 'We will write an American story of hope'	telegraph.co.uk
Biden’s new presidential license plates make subtle call for DC statehood	foxnews.com
Video: Trump supporter has meltdown after Biden inauguration — 'President Trump, if you see this, please save us.'	dailydot.com
'No plan, no Q, nothing': QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated	mobile.reuters.com
Amazon offers to help U.S. with vaccine efforts in letter to President Biden	reuters.com
Stock market posts best Inauguration Day rise in 36 years as Biden takes office	marketwatch.com
Bush, Clinton and Obama reflect on what Biden's inauguration meant to them	washingtonpost.com
New Hampshire boy who Biden helped with stutter recites JFK speech in inauguration special	nydailynews.com
President Biden Swore In Hundreds Of Appointees On A Zoom Call With A Big Warning	buzzfeednews.com
What's inside President Biden's Oval Office?	abc4.com
Clinton, Bush, Obama reflect on peaceful transition of power on Biden's Inauguration Day	thehill.com
Teen who bonded with Biden over stutter is featured in inauguration special	boston.com
A tale of two inaugurals: Comparing Biden and Trump's first presidential speeches	ctvnews.ca
Hours After Biden Inauguration, Federal Agents Use Tear Gas in Portland	nytimes.com
Here are the customary things Trump did not do leading up to Biden's inauguration	usatoday.com
'No plan, no Q, nothing': QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated	reuters.com
'No plan, no Q, nothing': QAnon followers reel as Biden inaugurated	reuters.com
"Dignity is back": What Europe's media said about Joe Biden inauguration	newsweek.com
US: President Joe Biden signs order to end Trump's Muslim travel ban from Seven Islamic nation	dawn.com
Video shows contractors blowing up mountains in Arizona for Trump's border wall after Biden became president. They have 7 days to stop.	businessinsider.com
How President Biden Handles a Divided America Will Define His Legacy	time.com
'F*** Joe Biden': Portland Protesters Vandalize Democrat HQ After Inauguration	newsweek.com
Adios AUMF? Democrats press Biden for help in revoking old war powers - Democrats called on the new president to work with Congress to kill the 2002 authorization for the Iraq War and hone the 2001 powers for the war on terrorism.	politico.com
President Joe Biden offers us reasons for hope, at last — but hope can be hazardous	salon.com
900,000 filed for jobless claims last week, a historically high level as Biden inherits worst job market of any modern president	washingtonpost.com
Newspapers around the world react to Biden's inauguration	edition.cnn.com
Biden revamps the Oval Office: President adds bust of Cesar Chavez and removes controversial portrait - The White House facilities were revamped in a span of hours during the Inauguration	independent.co.uk
President Biden to Canada: Drop dead	bostonherald.com
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says Biden is ‘calling us racist’ after inauguration speech	kentucky.com
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to President Biden: I'll see you in court, frequently	statesman.com
Read: President Joe Biden's schedule for his first full day in office	cnn.com
Unknown man in uniform seen keeping vigil at Beau Biden's grave during inauguration	thehill.com
How President Biden Handles a Divided America Will Define His Legacy	time.com
Joe Biden’s Been President for an Afternoon. Here’s What He’s Done So Far.	slate.com
Biden inauguration leaves QAnon believers in disarray	bbc.com
That Will Be ‘Mr. President’ for the Next Four Years What a Contrast: Biden Calls for Unity, Truth … No ‘American Carnage’	dcreport.org
NJ GOP's posture toward Biden's call for unity at inauguration? 'It rings hollow' - Stile	northjersey.com
QAnon believers are in disarray after Biden is inaugurated	edition.cnn.com
Tara Reade: Biden's inauguration makes 'difficult day for survivors of sexual violence'	washingtontimes.com
Mexican president hails Biden agenda, celebrates migration plan	reuters.com
Joe Biden has been president for 24 hours. Here is everything he’s done so far.	independent.co.uk
Joe Biden says he'll review Bears Ears - The new president also will examine the Trump administration's downsizing of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument	indiancountrytoday.com
Antifa Signs Declare "We dont want Biden, We want Revenge" and "We are ungovernable" on same day as Biden's Inauguration.	nytimes.com
'Affirmation of Complete Incompetence': Biden Team Says Trump Vaccine Distribution Plan Nonexistent - "There is nothing for us to rework," said one of President Biden's Covid advisers. "We are going to have to build everything from scratch."	commondreams.org

I guess I’m what you’d call an addict. Junkie, even. Alcohol? No, I don’t touch the stuff. I drink it, hahaha. Don’t need hands to do that, hence the punchline. Drugs? I mean, I dabble. Recreationally. Whatever you got, if it’s free, I’ll shoot it up, lick it, smoke it, stick under my eyelid, snort it right into my aorta. And I’m not particularly picky either. Captain Cody, Skag, Mud, Fidgeridoo, Herbal Speedball, Organ Oil, Demmies, Miss Emma, Kickers, Mrs. O, Yog-Sothamines, XTC, Sneeze, R-Balls; if you have them, I’ll take them. Still not addicted to the stuff though.
No, my one and only addiction is exceedingly simple, yet intolerably hard to satisfy; FUCKED UP SHIT. I’m not talking about your everyday dark web snuff mind you. I need the real deal. Something about my brain's incapability to shoot me up with dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin and endorphins (the D.O.S.E), according to several online doctors. So it’s a medical thing. Still haven’t scored a prescription for it though.
In any case, my medical condition forces me to deep dive into the fuckiest corners of society. You have your dark underground clubs, murder parties, subteranean sickofests, torture theatres, decapitation diners, and the odd organ orgies, but what I really enjoy, what makes my D.O.S.E overflow, is the ones you never hear about. The ones you have to find. No invitations, no RSVPs. One day they just pop up like a popcorn baby, and before you know it, they’re gone.
I’ve been to a few of these over the years, and they never disappoint. I already told you about the Baby Killer Incident, yeah? Then you know what I’m talking about. Fucked up shit!
I happened upon this particular one by Chance. Chance being this stripper I know that’s into some ritualistic cannibalism or other (I don’t ask), and long story short she knew the sicko who was hosting the event. I was hesitant at first, this particular sicko placing fairly high on my shitlist of sickos, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers and all. Not to mention that my D.O.S.E-withdrawals were flaring up, making me in essence nothing more than a shivering sack of suicidal human tissue on the best of days.
So there I was in an abandoned mall, shivering sack of suicidal human tissue, idly accepting assorted drugs from random passer-by deviants taking a pity on me, when this guy comes up to me, all dressed up in a pink hazmat suit with a freaky unicorn horn (which, when I look back on it, was probably a massive drill-shaped dildo) stuck to his helmet, and he goes Hey Tilly (that’s my name, Tilly), Hey Tilly, he says. I hear you like fucked up shit.
Man, word gets around, I think to myself, but at the same time these loud fucking alarm bells starts going off in my head, accompanied by Soviet Union-amounts of red flags. How the fuck do you know my name? I ask.
Your ears, he answers. The guy told me to look for a man with fucked up ears.
Well, you found’em, I say, making sure to twirl around all ballerina-like, highlighting my ugly-ass ear-stumps. And what fucking guy gave you my name?
That guy, he mumbles idly, not actually pointing to anyone. Say, what happened to them?
To who?
Your, uh, ears.
Oh, that, I say. Sliced them off as a punchline in an elaborate Van Gogh-joke. Well, two seperate jokes, actually. Both Van Gogh-related though.
The guy nods, maybe smiles, but I can’t really tell because of the dildo-helmet, and beckons for me to follow him. Now, I don’t normally follow strange men into bathrooms, but sometimes that’s exactly what you should do. I guess learning when to do it, and when not to do it is an integral skill in this setting, but you’ll figure it out one way or another, so don’t worry too much about it.
Anyway, into the bathroom we go. Like the rest of the place it’s spotless, meaning there isn’t a single fucking spot that isn’t covered in grime or dirt or bodily fluids of some description, and I wrinkle my nose in disgust as the guy waves me into an empty stall at the far end of it.
I hesitate momentarily, my mind doing some olympic-levels of mental gymnastics to calculate the risk/reward-ratio of my current situation. I land on an even 50/50 - good enough - and I saunter into the stall, only to realise it’s not a bathroom stall at all.
Unexpected, I say, my D.O.S.E-levels elevating ever so slightly.
The guy starts descending the winding staircase leading god-knows-where, looking back at me when he notices I’m still just standing there sheepishly. You coming or what? he asks.
Fuck no, I think to myself. Yeah, I say.
Now, I’m no architect, but I’ll hazard a guess and propose that winding staircases are a rare find in your standard mall bathroom, abandoned or not. This wasn’t always a mall, was it? I ask.
Good eye, the guy answers. Used to be a church. I guess capitalism always wins, huh?
I just nod, soon enough realising these fucking stairs are neverending, like one of those spirals you see in old movies, you know, when someone is getting hypnotised? Then I think back on this woman I met when I was young. Younger? Time man, it’s always going somewhere, and I never really bothered catching up to it. Anyway, I think back on this woman I bumped into on the street, and how she out of the blue asks me if I’d seen her job, and I was like what the fuck do you mean?
I’ve lost my job, she says.
It’s always in the last place you look, I note.
That’s really helpful, she says unironically. Say, could you help me with something else?
What?
Do you know, she starts. Do you know how to rewind a winding staircase?
I don’t know man, that shit always stuck with me. Some kind of riddle? An elaborate joke? A covert Operation Mindfuck? Escaped lunatic lingo? In any case, that’s how I felt when we descended those stairs. Like I was rewinding a winding staircase.
Here we are then, the guy suddenly exclaims, bringing me out of my temporal trip down memory lane.
I am wildly underwhelmed at this point, but after letting my eyes get used to the dimly lit basement chamber, I can feel my brain starting to upchuck some good fucking shit into my system.
Champagne? the guy asks, beckoning to a rather unbecoming rat-faced girl in the corner to come hither with a tray of alcoholic beverages.
Don’t mind if I’m already two steps ahead of you, I think, having snatched a bottle I found sitting by the stairs. I pop it open, and enjoy the weird expressions on their faces as I chug the whole fucking thing in a manner of seconds. Tastes like an aging puke-shit hybrid, but my think-organ seems to enjoy it, and I’m not one to start a fight with my own fucking brain.
I watch the two of them trade looks of confusion, realisation, and then something I (falsely) identify as fear, then turn my attention to the tied up naked man at the far end of the room. I think I forgot to mention him, but he was there too. In fact, he was the sole reason my D.O.S.E was elevating - the prospect of some kind of fucked up torture show enough to get my juices flowing.
Now what? the girl asks. Do we tell him?
Fuck it, the guy says, and then proceeds to bash half of my skull in with a crowbar.
You know the part in every fucking action movie where the main character knocks some poor unnamed henchman unconscious? Do you realise how fucking dangerous that is? Concussions are silent killers man. Could’ve inflicted some serious brain damage too. Those fuckers can fuck you up for life.
Anyway, I guess I must’ve been out for a few, because when I woke up, I found myself dangling from the ceiling, my body suspended mid-air by some rather sturdy-looking chains.
You fucked up royally this time Tilly, the dildo-helmet proposed.
If my jaw hadn’t felt like someone had ripped it out, then jammed it back in the wrong way around, I probably would have responded with a witty remark. As circumstances were though, I felt forced to reply with a half-hearted Guh?
Let’s show you exactly how much you fucked up, the guy says.
My mind slips in and out of what I assume is consciousness, but it’s like my thoughts are torn in half; one side continuously trying to make sense of what I’m seeing, and the other rapidly filling with nausea-inducing dread. Both are fucking screaming though, my stump-ears somehow hearing the inside of my mind lamenting as it drowns slowly in an all-consuming madness.
The naked man screams too, but he’s more physical about it. How can a supposedly regular set of lungs contain that much air, I find myself thinking. His skin is a deep shade of red, some of it undoubtedly caused by lack of oxygen, some of it by the ever-growing stream of blood ceaselessly dripping down from his soon-to-be empty eye-socket.
Pull it Ems! the guy yells.
The rat-faced girl, Ems, has this horrid fucking grin on her face. You know how an old lemon looks, like a really shrivelled up piece of lemon? All wrinkles and browning leathery texture? That was her face. All fucking rotting wrinkled lemon texture smiles.
Pull it!
Ems got the naked man’s eye firmly gripped between her thumb and index, long dirty fingernails digging into the spongy vitreous, having now pulled it about an inch or so outside of the poor fucker’s socket. And I can just tell by her posture that she’s readying herself for that final, horrible yank.
I want to close my eyes so badly at this point, you know, just fucking succumb to the madness my brain is desperately conjuring up to save me, but at the same time I can’t. I physically cannot get my eyelids to work. I don’t know why, but that fucking fact freaks me out more than anything else going on.
And then it happens. With a swift, overly dramatic motion, she rips the fucking eye all the way out, and the man’s tormented shrieks reaches sonic levels that transcends human hearing. My ears are ringing, my mind is swirling, and my eyes are itching.
Watch this Tilly, the guy says coldly. Watch this fucking shit real closely.
And I do. Barely conscious at this point, hanging onto sanity only by fucking ignoring reality as a concept, I watch as Ems drops the severed eye to the dirty grime-covered floor, the disgusting fucking thing still somehow connected to the man via the optical nerves - impossibly long squirming crimson tendrils.
What the fuck? I mumble.
I told you, the guy chuckles. I fucking told you.
It’s hard to say how many there were. Countless maybe. Countless and then some, probably. Thin crimson worms, entangled in each other, organically interwoven to form a disgusting chain from the naked man’s empty eye socket to the severed eye on the floor. I could see them slithering in perfect repulsive unison, and suddenly the eye starts...moving.
This is the best part, the guy says.
The squirming chain slowly starts retracting, the blue of the eye turning a savory shade of grime-grey as it is dragged across the floor, up the naked man's legs, stomach, neck, face, until finally, after what seems like an eternity, it pops right back into the socket with a repulsive gloooph.
My stomach wants me to vomit now, but it’s barren and dry and empty and sour, so instead my brain takes control, a tempting blank void all the way in the back of my mind presented as a possible solution. But they won’t let me go. Ems erupts in a maniacal laughter, like the sound of a chainsaw on rough concrete, and the guy soon follows. I feel the muscles in my back contracting all seizure-like; more than likely my body’s last desperate attempt at shutting me down.
The naked man has stopped screaming now, the tortured wails replaced by a deep gargle, slime and blood mixed together in the back of his throat. Maybe his nightmare will end, I think, but then I realise it won’t. It hasn’t. It’s still going.
The eye is still moving.
Being dragged now inside his skull, I see the spongy texture of it bending and morphing hideously as it squeezes past bone structures that are by far too fucking narrow, and then it disappears completely, accompanied by a soundscape of gloophs and schlucks.
The man topples over, still tied to the chair, and convulses in agony for minutes, until it all suddenly stops.
I have never experienced such silence. That’s how I imagine space, you know. A great old big fucking vast empty nothingness of all the senses.
And now, the guy says, standing over the corpse of the naked man. Now it is your turn.
Ems hideous face morphs into that smile again. Big old lemon wrinkled smile. I remember her crooked yellow fingernails so vividly, horrid jagged things inching closer and closer to my eye, until I could feel them scraping on my exposed pupil.
I guess my mind found a way out right then. Fucking took it long enough though, but I figure I must have passed out, maybe from the pain, maybe from the fear, maybe from the exhaustion. Most likely neither of those, though.
When I woke up, I was alone, face down in my own sour-dry vomit on the ground. No naked corpse man, no dildo-helmet guy, no lemon-smiled Ems. I spent a good fifteen minutes checking my eyes, trembling fingers tracing them, you know, just to see if they were still there. And they were. They were fucking solid. They were fucking perfect.
I guess I spent a few weeks or so recuperating from that shit, but I’ve never felt quite the same. Turns out there’s a reason for that.
It’s weird you know, how I didn’t realise it sooner. I might be a fucked up piece of shit, but I’m no dummy. Gotta hand it to them though, it was a clever way to do it. Offering you a drink. I guess that’s how they got it in the naked man too. I suppose that’s why they told me I fucked up. Took too much, as the saying goes. Chugged the whole infestation.
I cut myself shaving this morning. Just a tiny nick, you know. But where you’d expect blood, there was none. Instead I was greeted with the unseemly sight of a thin crimson worm, dangling restlessly by my nose.
Now if that’s not some FUCKED UP SHIT, I don’t know what is.
TCC

This video attempts to explain why one should believe the things the christian bible says, specifically because:

it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

THESIS: The arguments and evidence presented in the video completely fail to support the above position.
It's a huge post: feel free to only tackle a specific section or 2, I think they're mostly self-contained.
In some cases I say that I suspect the speaker of being dishonest. If you don't like that, just know that he straight up calls people "ignorant, or evil, or both" [34:07] and "fools" [56:03] (stated as a fact, not merely his opinion) for using specific arguments or not accepting his conclusion. I think he opened up the Pandora's Box of guessing others' intent and so I've done it as well, though I've tried to be as responsible as possible. If you think I've been unfair, please let me know why.
TL;DR and conclusion next, for your convenience...

TL;DR & Conclusion

The speaker first presents the question: "why the bible?" (I've tried to phrase this more rigorously as: "why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?") The speaker then presents his answer, and dissects it to address and support each claim within it.
However, his methodology for investigating the question actually rests on the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible" (in his own words, 12:35-ish). This is a direct answer to the question he's investigating, and therefore any answer which rests on this premise is circular. I demonstrate that important portions of the speaker's argument do seem to rest on this premise and other lines of fallacious reasoning, and so his answer seems to be based on invalid reasoning and should not be trusted.
The speaker also fails to present compelling evidence for any of the claims which make up his answer, and often relies on fallacious arguments. His arguments include:

• Questionable interpretations of biblical passages: citing passages widely believed to be forgeries as if they are eyewitness testimony, and reading "between the lines" and other forms of motivated interpretation
• Unsound interpretations of the history of the bible: preferring a "very early" authorship of New Testament books, against the consensus of modern scholars and without giving any justification; and citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence (argument from silence), in a case where the old adage actually holds true
• Errors in analyzing probabilities: preferring less likely explanations over more likely ones, or not applying Occam's Razor where it would help
• Straw men, an appeal to consequences, an argument from popularity, affirming the consequent, and other fallacious arguments

Even ignoring the circularity of his methodology, the speaker fails to come close to proving his point. That's not to say he's wrong: the bible could be an authoritative source of information about the Universe, and he's just failed to piece together a valid argument which supports that position. I don't think that's the case (and I've done just a bit to rebut that position), but it's possible. However, after viewing this video and considering all the poor arguments it presents, I still think it's far more likely that christianity and its bible originated entirely due to mundane natural events, maybe akin to what's proposed here.
In my own experience, however flawed the arguments presented in this video are, I've seen them used a lot. I hope that some readers might see how to debunk an argument they consider sound, so that those folks can reconsider their position and build stronger arguments in the future.

Video Overview

First off, this video attempts to answer the question "why the bible?" In the context of the video it's pretty clear what he means, but it's vague out of context, so I'll rephrase it more rigorously:
"Why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?"
For the most part the video is a systematic dissection of the speaker's position.

The "Egregious Flaw" in Methodology

At [12:35] the speaker says the following, to rebut the objection that 'proving the bible using the bible constitutes circular reasoning'. He's trying to get in front of this objection because most of his reasoning is, in fact, an attempt to prove the bible using the bible.

The question is "why I choose to believe the bible". ... The answer to that question for me resides in the bible itself. Now why would I appeal to the bible in this way? Because there is no higher authority than the bible. See, if I were to appeal to another authority, then I would be conceding that there is a higher authority than the bible. So this might be a problem in any other area, and any other field -- however, I'm making the argument that this is the higher authority, and therefore by definition I cannot appeal to another authority.

He asks the question "why do I consider the bible authoritative?", and he investigates it under the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible". The main premise underlying his entire investigation is a direct answer to the question he's investigating: this is the definition of circular reasoning.
​
But doesn't he make a good point? Wouldn't any other premise corrupt his investigation and bar him from reaching the conclusion that "there is no higher authority than the bible"?
No, that's ridiculous, and here's why...
For one thing, when the speaker says that his question is different from any other question in any other field, and yet fails to give a sufficient explanation for how it's different -- that's special pleading. Sure, maybe it's impossible to investigate whether any given thing is the ultimate authority. But even if that's the case, it doesn't make circular arguments valid.
Including an answer as a premise forces one to interpret all the evidence in a manner consistent with the premise, or to only consider evidence that's consistent with the premise -- which of course forces the investigation to reach the conclusion stated in the premise. That's what a premise is: a foundational assumption which guides all subsequent reasoning. It is not constraining in any way to assume that a thing might not be authoritative, in order to investigate whether or not it is authoritative -- it's the only honest way to investigate any question.
The speaker should be more than willing to assume that he might be wrong, and then undertake a fair investigation from there. If he's right and the bible is the ultimate authority on the Universe, then he can only demonstrate that by comparing it to extrabiblical reality. And again, if he's right, everything in the Universe should agree with the bible -- and even the nay-sayers ought to accept that as proof!
Why is he unwilling to strike the killing blow to his opponents' arguments, if he's certain that he's right?
​
In the following sections I'll show how this circular reasoning appears to lead the speaker back to his assumed conclusion.

The Speaker's Answer

Presented at 11:05: see very top for quote.
I'll address it claim by claim, as done by the speaker...

Claim 1: "... it's a reliable collection of historical documents ..."

At 15:08, the speaker cites the following as evidence in for this claim:

• The bible was written on 3 different continents
• In 3 different languages
• By over 40 authors from multiple walks of life: kings, generals, fishermen, tax collectors, doctors, historians
• In 66 volumes, covering hundreds of subjects
• Over more than 1500 years

So what? In all these ways it's similar to the Hindu scriptures, but does the speaker give any credence to those? Though he does mention other religious texts [3:57] and even presents them as alternatives to the bible, he doesn't discuss these so-called "strengths" of the Hindu scriptures (or any others) in his lecture: I think either he's unaware of them, or his premise -- that the christian bible is the highest authority -- has caused him to exclude Hindu and other scriptures from his investigation, because analyzing them the same way he analyzed the bible would cast doubt on his assumed conclusion. So, "why the bible?" when the Hindu scriptures and perhaps others are so similar in the ways the speaker cares about? Who knows? He didn't address it, though he should have.
But even if there were nothing remotely comparable to the bible in these ways -- why should it matter? Does the number of languages used to compose something somehow affect is authority? For that matter, does composing one work on the corner of 3 continents somehow make it more authoritative than another one composed on the edge of the Indian subcontinent, or in the middle of North America? And why should we care how many people wrote it, or their backgrounds, or how many separate books it's composed of, or how long it took to write?
I know what he's getting at: he's trying to say, "how could this many people, over such a long time, across such large swathes of multiple societies, all be wrong in the same way?" Well, that's a fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum', an argument from popularity. Just because a bunch of people believe something, that doesn't make it true, or even likely to be true. All the bible authors were Jews and early christians living in Eastern Mediterranean societies; they were well aware of earlier Jewish oral and written traditions, and likely tried to constrain their work to enhance rather than refute the existing traditions; and the works which weren't popular or didn't agree with existing traditions were not included as canon! The bible's internal consistency (such as it is) doesn't indicate that its contents are true -- it indicates that its authors prioritized internal consistency.
The speaker has made an argumentum ad populum, derived from evidence heavily affected by sample selection bias and observer bias. It's a terrible argument, built on terrible evidence. After a bit of thought, anybody who isn't operating under the speaker's circular premise should be able to see the problems with this argument.
​
At 17:40, the speaker seems to claim that the author of Luke was a historian, and that we should trust them at their word when they make claims, because as a historian they researched the claims before publishing them:

Luke was not an eyewitness -- he doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. He's a historian who claims to have traced the information from the eyewitnesses. ... The fact that this man was not an eyewitness, but collected information from individuals who were eyewitnesses [...], and has followed everything closely for some time past, and he wanted to write an orderly account. ... Luke's goal is history and chronology.

Well, Luke probably wasn't a historian in any modern sense of the word, so "history and chronology" in any modern sense probably weren't his real goal. Modern historical research didn't really happen in ancient times, so I'm reluctant to accept that when the author of Luke says he has "followed all things closely for some time past", he actually means he's found enough objective evidence to support the claims he's heard. It's not what he explicitly says, and that was not the common practice at the time, so I find it hard to believe that's what he meant.
Also, I don't think Luke 1:1-4 (cited by the speaker) implies that Luke tried at all to investigate the claims he received from others. Instead, this passage can easily mean that the author of Luke was told some stuff by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and he's just writing those things down because he believes them based on the story alone. It's not even clear that the author talked to the eyewitnesses -- he could have just talked to the "ministers" in verse 2, who told him they got it from eyewitnesses.
The Lucan author could be recounting pure hearsay, 100 retellings deep, as if it's fact -- or he could have gone to the ends of the Earth to verify what he heard. But he doesn't describe his sources or methods, so we don't know, and it's hazardous to guess... Yet the speaker hazards a guess, and tries to pass off that guess as truth. In this case, I think he's forcing his interpretation of the passage to match his assumed conclusion, and to do so he's made a lot of seemingly unwarranted assumptions.
​
Then at 27:47 the speaker says this:

"There have been more than 25,000 archaeological digs related directly to the subject matter of the bible. ... Not one of them has contradicted anything that we have in the bible, and the overwhelming majority of them have confirmed and affirmed the things that we find in the bible."

First off, I don't accept this claim at face value -- I'd like to see some citations, but the speaker doesn't give any. Also, biblical claims like the Genesis flood have been thoroughly debunked (though I think archaeology only played a small part). I bet a lot of archaeology has proved parts of the bible wrong, and Wiki seems to agree with me so I think I'm right to doubt the speaker's claim. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm going to make, so I'll move on...
I accept that some places and events in the bible are factual. That's no problem. These were people writing about their society and their time, so it would be ridiculous if nothing in the bible were factual. But the fact that it contains some facts does not imply that all its contents are facts.
"My name is Andrew Joslin. I live in the United States. I have black hair. I love cats."
Those 4 statements are internally consistent, and 3 of them are true -- so does that mean they all are? No. One of them is false.
In just the same manner, some things in the bible can be true, and verified by archaeology and science, while other things in the bible might be false. Just because we verified the Babylonian Captivity with reasonable certainty (Jer 52), that doesn't at all support the claim that a deity had anything to do with it (Jer 52:2-3).

Claim 2: "... written by eyewitnesses ..."

First off, from 19:31 - 20:50, the speaker very strongly implies that he thinks the traditional authors -- the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John -- are the real authors of the 4 gospels. Over and over he says "Matthew is writing...", "his favorite words are...", "that's why we have his gospel written the way it's written", and other phrases which make it very unlikely that he is personifying the books, and far more likely that he is talking about the authors themselves and believes they are the same as the tradition says. But those authors are merely the church tradition, and this tradition is very much doubted by modern scholars.
Additionally, multiple times in the video [13:54, 40:30] he cites 2 Peter as if it's authoritative on what Peter experienced and thought. But modern scholars believe this book to be a forgery and not written by Peter, so I don't know why anybody would consider 2 Peter authoritative on what Peter experienced or thought. If 2 Peter is a forgery then the reference at 51:20 is also problematic, because I suspect that a person who forges a book by Peter may also be so bold as to claim that all scripture is divine in origin, as an attempt to give more credence to their own forgery.
All this makes me wonder how much the speaker actually knows about how the bible was written -- and if he does know what modern scholarship says about these things, I wonder whether he might just be throwing out the modern scholarly consensus in favor of his personal, pet beliefs (his premise that the bible is the ultimate authority). Neither is a good option, and either way you cut it this lowers my trust in the speaker.
​
Finally, at 21:20 the speaker claims that John was an eyewitness to... something. He cites John 1:1-3 to support this:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Okay, the author clearly says that he has both seen and heard certain, unnamed things, which have apparently convinced him of the truth of the message he is about to relay in the rest of his gospel.
I grant that the author is saying he "saw and heard" things -- but what? It seems like poetic language, and it doesn't make any distinction between the things the author has personally seen, and what he has heard second- or third- or nth-hand from others. True, the author may have personally experienced some stuff as an eyewitness, but it's unclear from these verses what that stuff was, and how much of the remainder of this gospel is hearsay versus eyewitness testimony. I'm not even sure that the author of John ever claims to have seen Jesus -- perhaps the rest of John proves me wrong, but from this passage it's entirely possible that the things the author experienced firsthand were more akin to what modern parishioners experience in church, than to personally witnessing the things Jesus said and did. People today say they are convinced by their own experiences without ever having seen Jesus in the flesh, so perhaps that's what the author of John is saying in this passage.
But even if the gospel of John were eyewitness testimony, that's still not great... Wiki says that "most scholars believe that John reached its final form around AD 90–110", so this would be eyewitness testimony that is, per most scholars, at least 57 years old at the time it was written down. We know for a fact that eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. This study demonstrated the unreliability of eyewitness testimony for a somewhat mundane event. These are known cases where mistaken or perjured eyewitness testimony resulted in a wrongful conviction and death row sentence, and here's a study which indicates that high stress negatively impacts the quality of eyewitness testimony (specifically, it affects the eyewitness's ability to accurately recall the events).
If a crucifixion of a man named Jesus or Jeshua did indeed happen, then eyewitnesses to that event might have had some difficulty accurately retelling what they saw, even the first time they retold the story. This could be compounded with the eyewitnesses having heard rumors that he was a prophet, which might render their interpretation of what they saw vulnerable to suggestion. The long time period between the writing of this gospel and the events it describes is also problematic, because during that time it was passed on as an oral tradition, and continued retelling as a shared oral tradition can cause the recalled experiences to degrade in accuracy and become poisoned by later changes. That's how memory recall works: it's subject to errors and changes each time we do it. It happens to everybody, and to individuals as well as groups. It's not necessarily lying: errors can and do accumulate very quickly despite people's best intentions to be truthful.
So from the passages presented by the speaker, it's far from a certainty that the author of John was an eyewitness to the events described in the gospel of John. And even if he were, eyewitness testimony is extremely problematic, and frankly I'd consider it more likely that this eyewitness testimony has been corrupted by the factors described above, than the purported supernatural events in the story actually happened as described. Maybe there's more evidence to be found in John, but I find the speaker's use of this passage alone insufficient to support his argument: to call this evidence is wishful thinking or motivated interpretation at best.

Claim 3: "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..."

At 23:22, in support of this claim the speaker says there's a huge problem "dating the problem late". I don't know what problem he's referring to, because he didn't explain it as far as I could tell. He then cites 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as support for "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..." -- however, in those verses Paul explicitly says that he's recounting a story he's been told. I've heard some speculation as to whether this may be some type of early christian creed, in which case it would have been meant as a statement of faith, rather than a discussion of facts in evidence (I find this plausible, but I can't back it up with evidence so I'm treating it as mere speculation).
But all speculation aside, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 Paul literally admits that he is not personally attesting to the veracity of what he's saying: he's repeating something he was told. Obviously he is personally attesting his own experience in verse 8, but all the rest is stuff that he was told and cannot attest to personally.
So Paul was told that "the 500" and a bunch of other people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and that most of them are still alive. Therefore, when the speaker later [24:22] says this:

"If you do the math, there are at least 301 eyewitness to the resurrection who are alive when 1 Corinthians was written.

... I don't think the speaker has any justification to reach this conclusion. Even if Paul believed it was true, does that mean we should believe it? Again, Paul need not be lying here, nor do his sources need to be lying, in order for this passage to be a falsehood. Everybody in the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul could be doing their best to report the events accurately, and they could still have gotten it wrong.
Not knowing how long the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul actually was, again I'd say it's far less likely that the events described in the story are true, than that the message Paul delivers here was corrupted by false memories and erroneous retellings -- or even outright lies or exaggeration*** -- and therefore false. (***We don't know the pedigree of the story before it reached Paul, so we can't say that every middle-man retelling of it was honest. Even if you would die defending Paul's honesty, that still says nothing for all the people in the chain that passed this information to him.)
​
The speaker uses these verses again at 29:06, where he says this:

But what we find here in this text is, again, over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written. Why is this important? This is important because that means that the gospel message, that the message of the bible, is falsifiable. ... When you're testing the veracity of a claim, if somebody's making a claim and that claim can't be falsified, that means you can't test the claim. Not a very strong claim, if you can't test the claim -- that means I just gotta trust you, because there's nothing I can do to falsify your claim, I just gotta trust you. This claim is falsifiable. When Paul wrote it, it was a falsifiable claim, and yet it was never falsified. That's a piece of evidence that has to be weighed.

First off, even if the claim was falsifiable at the time it was made, it's not falsifiable now, and now is when we are being asked to believe the claim. People of Paul's time may have been able to interrogate these supposed eyewitnesses, but we can't -- and we can't even be sure they ever existed -- so their testimony can't falsify Paul's account for us. It's unfortunate that the evidence we need to falsify Paul's claims may be lost to time -- but that doesn't mean we should believe what he says, and as far as we can tell it actually renders his claims unfalsifiable to us. Per the speaker's own logic, this is a good reason to doubt what Paul says.
Second, as explained above, I don't accept that there were "over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection" still alive in time to read 1 Corinthians. Even if there were living eyewitnesses at that time, the following problems must be overcome before claiming this as evidence:

• Maybe 1 Corinthians wasn't published anywhere these eyewitnesses could have seen it, in time for them to falsify it. It's a letter to the church of Corinth (far from Judea, where we'd expect most eyewitnesses to remain), written in a language foreign to them (Greek), at a time when few people could read
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and didn't falsify it because it matched their (incorrect) understanding of what happened. It is possible for everybody to be wrong in roughly the same ways, that's how witness collusion and legends work
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and did falsify it -- but one of the following happened:
  • They chose to leave the area instead of risking voicing their objections to a popular belief
  • Their objections were overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices which ended up informing the books of the bible
  • They voiced their objections verbally and never wrote them down
  • Their written objections were lost over the centuries (including the purposeful destruction of "heretical" texts by the church, rulers, and individuals)
  • We just haven't found the document yet

All of the above are perfectly reasonable explanations for why we don't have a specific, ancient document in our hands.
Also, for what it's worth, I'd like to mention that here the speaker is literally using absence of evidence as evidence of absence: this is an argument from silence, and it's fallacious here because it affirms the consequent by completely ignoring other very plausible explanations. Arguments from silence are perfectly fine when the absence of the thing necessarily implies the falsehood of the claim: for example, the claim "I have a green horn sticking out of my forehead" is falsified by the absence of a green horn sticking out of my forehead. Arguments from silence also be okay evidence (though not very conclusive) when there are good reasons to believe that if the claim were true we should likely have the evidence we lack. But here it is a no-no because what we know about the production, preservation, etc., of ancient documents gives us the most likely explanation for why we don't have the evidence.
So yeah, that's a horribly fallacious argument... And this one's obvious enough, and the speaker seems intelligent enough, that I'm going to just say it: of all the arguments the speaker makes, this is the one that most makes me suspect dishonesty. Maybe he's chosen to present this paper tiger in place of a good argument because he knows he has nothing better. It makes me suspect he's consciously chosen not to investigate his question, but instead seeks to prove his foregone conclusion by any means necessary.
Not that he's outright lying -- I think he really does believe his foregone conclusion. But I think he hasn't set out to honestly investigate it, and this awful argument is, in my opinion, a direct result of that flaw in his methodology.
​
At 30:44 the speaker states that the NT was written "very early", which I guess is supposed to support the "by eyewitnesses, in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses" prong of his answer. Yet he gives no evidence for this "very early" claim. I think these are the points where he tries to support the argument, but both seem to be non sequiturs (fallacies):

• At 31:30 the speaker argues against a straw man of the popular "telephone game" argument
  • It's a straw man because the telephone game argument is a description of how both transcription and translation errors accumulate in hand-copied texts over time -- however, the speaker presents it as if everybody who ever translated the bible had the same source material to translate or transcribe from. That's simply not true. It's been proven that differences exist in the earliest known copies of every book of the bible, and these differences grew over time. Medieval scribes didn't have the originals to copy or translate from: they were working from copies of copies of copies, etc. Indeed, Bart Ehrman says that the earliest scribes tended to make more errors than the later ones.
  • It's a non sequitur, because it was brought up in the context of trying to prove that the NT was authored "very early", and it actually has nothing to do with that, so it's probably a relevance fallacy of some type. The "telephone game" argument explains how copies of copies become less and less true to the originals. It does not comment on the date of the originals, yet that's what the speaker is trying to prove here.
• At 34:54 the speaker claims that we have over 6000 manuscripts or fragments of the NT, which is more than we have for other ancient texts of similar age
  • This is a non sequitur for a number of reasons, at least one of them a relevance fallacy. First, the books cited by the speaker are generally quite a bit older than the books of the NT -- by many hundreds of years, in some cases. Second, the number of fragments has nothing to do with when the books were written, which is the point the speaker is trying to prove.

I feel that these two arguments actually distract the audience rather than supporting the speaker's claim. I don't know whether this was his intent, or a mistake, or I'm just being dumb -- mainly because I have no idea how he thinks these points support his claim. At the very least they distracted me, and after re-watching them multiple times I still couldn't make any better sense of these arguments than as non sequiturs based on straw men.
If you think he's supported his "very early" NT authorship claim at all with these points, then please let me know how.
​
But regardless of my poor understanding of this section of the video, or the speaker's lack of evidence, or whatever happened here, I don't think it even matters. Even if the NT books were written "very early", it would not mean that the lack of contemporaneous objections to the NT's claims constitutes evidence in favor of the NT's claims. Again, arguments from silence are not appropriate here, and I really do suspect that the speaker is being intellectually dishonest here, as discussed toward the beginning of this section.

Claim 4: "They report supernatural events that took place ..."

At 40:30 the speaker cites 2 Peter in support of this claim. Aside from the problems I already mentioned with 2 Peter, and how (in my opinion) the speaker's usage of that book diminishes his credibility --
Why would it matter that the authors claim that supernatural events happened? Should we just... believe them? It's one thing to say "I saw X". It's another entirely to say "I saw X, and I know that Y caused it". The first is a statement of one's own experience, whereas the second is an experience plus an inference. Why should we believe that these peoples' inferences about the supernatural are reliable, and that the reported events (assuming they actually occurred) were actually supernatural?
Note that my objection isn't based on demeaning ancient peoples. I don't think this problem really gets any easier with more knowledge. Inferences about the supernatural should always be treated as speculation, until and unless we find some way to objectively investigate the supernatural. We don't have a way to do that now, so we should not believe the claims (yet).
More support for this claim is given at 41:33, but it suffers from the same problem.
The speaker should be treating these claims as what they are -- claims, which need to be substantiated before anybody should believe them. He's not doing that. I don't know if he just doesn't suspect that they could be wrong, or if he's turning a blind eye to a problem he's aware of. Either way, it's just very unsatisfying, and consciously or not I wonder whether his circular premise "there is no higher authority than the bible" has crept into this part of his analysis, too.

Claim 5: "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..."

The speaker supports this argument with Isaiah 53 at 43:02, and with Psalm 22 at 45:44.
I read Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and to me it's not that impressive. It's not a specific prophesy, because it doesn't tell when the thing will happens, and many people (and even whole nations) of that area and timeframe probably fit that description. Jesus is just the guy that got super popular (though he was not the only one).
​
I agree that Psalm 22 seems to describe somebody being crucified. Or it could be another method of torture that I don't know of, but let's just assume it's crucifixion for the sake of argument. However, it shares the same problems as Isaiah 53: it doesn't give any specifics, so it could be talking about literally anybody from that time and place who was crucified. Jesus quoting the first line while on the cross could easily have been a detail made up by the gospel authors (or the people who participated in the oral tradition), as a way to heighten the image of Jesus as the messiah. They wanted to tell a compelling story, and that would be a great way to make it more compelling to a Jewish audience.
Anyway, the speaker says that at the time of writing Psalm 22, crucifixion had not yet been invented -- but he didn't cite any sources so I don't know if he's right or wrong. I looked it up quickly, and Wiki says "The psalms making up the first two-thirds of the psalter are predominantly pre-exilic and the last third predominantly post-exilic", I think referring to the Babylonian Exile from 586-539 BCE. Since I can't read Wiki's reference I don't know if Psalm 22 is in that pre-exile group, but I'd guess so, and that's the most generous assumption I can make so let's work with that. That gives us an early 6th Century BCE date as the latest possible date for Psalm 22 being written down...
... And here's a reference saying the Persians were crucifying people "systematically" in the 6th Century BCE, and that they probably got the idea from the Assyrians and Babylonians, so those countries may have been doing it earlier than that. So contrary to the speaker's bald assertion, there's some plausible overlap (as far as I can tell) between when Psalm 22 was first written down, and when crucifixions were performed in the region. Yes, I'm working off of the manuscript date rather than the actual date it was composed, but I think that's fine: Psalm 22 began as an oral tradition, and perhaps the crucifixion details were added into it before it was written down, once people became aware of the practice. I think that's far more likely than Psalm 22 being a prophesy, and since we can't reconstruct the original oral tradition we'll just have to wonder.
​
Also, prophesy in general has a few big problems:

1. People who know of the prophesy can work to fulfill it
2. People retelling a story can alter the details of the story to make it seem like the prophesy was fulfilled
3. It's sometimes not clear whether something is a prophesy at all, or what is being prophesied

Both "fulfilled prophesies" cited by the speaker suffer from all these problems.
The authors of the New Testament obviously knew the OT books well, and were motivated to make Jesus seem like the Hebrew messiah -- that's why they wrote the gospels in the first place. That would give them a strong incentive to either make up parts of the gospel stories wholesale to better match the prophesies, or to selectively interpret the things they heard or experienced in a way that makes the events fit the prophesy better.
And even if there wasn't much embellishment, couldn't it be that Jesus and the apostles actively worked to fulfill as much of those "prophesies" as possible? A great quote from Matt Dillahunty: "If I go to a restaurant and order a steak medium rare, and the server gives me exactly that, is he fulfilling prophesy?" In my opinion, nope, he's merely following instructions, just like Jesus and the apostles may have merely been following a script. I understand that some people might still call this "fulfilling prophesy", but given the other 2 problems I think this idea of "fulfilled prophesies" is still on super thin ice.
Finally, Isaiah 53 is often interpreted by Jews as a prophesy for the nation of Israel, not the messiah. And I think they believe Psalm 22 is just a poem or song, not a prophesy. You can claim they're prophesies, but it's not clear that they were intended to be, or what exactly they predict, so when they're "fulfilled" (especially as questionably as in this case) I'm not sure how much that really means.
​
This isn't a great case for the "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..." claim. It looks like wishful thinking to me, again perhaps motivated by the speaker's premise that the bible is the ultimate authority. Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody here can do a better job supporting this position than the speaker did.

Claim 6: "... and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

At 51:20, the speaker cites 2 Peter 1 to support the claim that the bible authors claimed their writings are divine in origin. I've already noted my objections to using 2 Peter (a likely forgery) as evidence for anything that Peter the apostle experienced or thought --
But just as with claims for supernatural events, even if 2 Peter is not a forgery, why would it matter that the authors claim the bible is divine in origin? As discussed above I think it's very unlikely that Psalm 22 or Isaiah 52/53 are fulfilled prophesies, so now where are we?
We're left without any supporting evidence for the claim. They said it, so should we just believe it? As with claim 4, this is just very unsatisfying, and I wonder whether the speaker's circular premise had something to do with it.

Final Bones to Pick

I wish I could address his points at 52:12 and 53:15, even though they're not directly related to the rest of the talk -- but I'm out of space.
The first is an appeal to consequences built on an equivocation fallacy, and in the second he describes the questions one must ask in any historical investigation -- questions which he addressed poorly or not at all in this video.
These two attempts to twist logic into a shape that supports his point -- well, they disgust me.

Welcome back to another purchase megathread!
For a link to last month's post, see here.
Update on the Creality CR-6 SE Smoke Issue: The issue was caused by abnormalities by the IC in the power supply for the motherboard. They say the issue is not hazardous as long as the printers are used normally, not mentioning what they will be doing for the affected units which are out there. Recommend caution if you are looking at one of these printers, looking at your other options may be quite a wise decision.
This thread is meant to conglomerate purchase advice for both newcomers and people looking for additional machines. Keeping this discussion to one thread means less searching should anyone have questions that may already have been answered here, as well as more visibility to inquiries in general, as comments made here will be visible for the entire month stuck to the top of the sub, and then linked to in the next month's thread.
If you are new to 3D printing, and are unsure of what to ask, try to include the following in your posts as a minimum:

• Your budget, set at a numeric amount. Saying "cheap," or "money is not a problem" is not an answer people can do much with. 3D printers can cost $100, they can cost $10,000,000, and anywhere in between. A rough idea of what you're looking for is essential to figuring out anything else.
• Your country of residence.
• If you are willing to build the printer from a kit, and what your level of experience is with electronic maintenance and construction if so.
• What you wish to do with the printer.
• Any extenuating circumstances that would restrict you from using machines that would otherwise fit your needs (limited space for the printer, enclosure requirement, must be purchased through educational intermediary, etc).

While this is by no means an exhaustive list of what can be included in your posts, these questions should help paint enough of a picture to get started. Don't be afraid to ask more questions, and never worry about asking too many. The people posting in this thread are here because they want to give advice, and any questions you have answered may be useful to others later on, when they read through this thread looking for answers of their own. Everyone here was new once, so chances are whoever is replying to you has a good idea of how you feel currently.
Additionally, a quick word on print quality: Most FDM/FFF (that is, filament based) printers are capable of approximately the same tolerances and print appearance, as the biggest limiting factor is in the nature of extruded plastic. Asking if a machine has "good prints," or saying "I don't expect the best quality for $xxx" isn't actually relevant for the most part with regards to these machines. Should you need additional detail and higher tolerances, you may want to explore SLA, DLP, and other photoresin options, as those do offer an increase in overall quality.
As always, if you're a newcomer to this community, welcome. If you're a regular, welcome back.

Hi all,
I've been putting together info for how to recycle in Tucson while leveraging all the recycling options that are open to me: curbside, the city's upcoming glass drop-off, local and mail-in corporate-sponsored, and TerraCycle (a paid option). I aim to reuse or recycle every last bit of waste coming out of our house, no matter how crazy it may seem. Partly I just want to see how difficult it is; I recognize that my process isn't practical for most people.
Anyway, here's what I've gathered so far.

General principles

​

1. COMPOST: If it can be composted, compost it! (More on this below.)
2. REUSE: If it can't be composted, reuse it! Reuse is always the most environmentally-friendly option.
3. DONATE: If it can't be reused by you, donate it if it's something worth donating that someone else could use. https://tucsoncleanandbeautiful.org/ has a great directory for places that will accept various materials. Cero is a Tucson store that also accepts lots of stuff for donation and reuse. Donation usually involves transportation and some kind of carbon emissions, but it's still better than recycling. Don't donate junk! Donations aren't a free trash can.
4. MUNICIPAL RECYCLING: If it can't be donated, recycle it locally using municipal recycling (curbside or drop-off). Recycle Coach has all the info you need on what municipal recycling can or can't recycle. ESGD's page on residential recycling also has some important guidelines. Recycling uses energy and involves carbon-emitting transport, plus not everything in a recycling waste stream actually gets recycled, so try to reuse first.
5. LOCAL STORE DROP-OFF: If it can't be recycled using municipal recycling, recycle it at a local store for free. Earth911 has a search page that finds these stores and breaks them down by type, and TerraCycle's corporate-sponsored programs page also has some local programs. These programs typically ship their waste to a recycling partner, often TerraCycle in New Jersey, which adds to the environmental footprint of the process, so try to recycle municipally first.
6. FREE MAIL-IN: If it can't be recycled at a local store, use one of TerraCycle's free corporate-sponsored mail-in programs. These programs end up sending waste TerraCycle, just like the local store drop-offs, but are arguably less efficient than sending a big communal batch of stuff, so try to use the local store drop-offs first.
7. TERRACYCLE (PAID): If it can't be recycled using a mail-in program, use a paid all-in-one box to have TerraCycle recycle it if it's small and light. This is effectively the same as using one of the mail-in options above except that you have to pay, so try to use a mail-in program first.
8. REGIONAL DROP-OFF: If it's a big bulky waste that can't be donated, see if it can be recycled outside of Tucson (e.g., save up Styrofoam for the next time I drive to Phoenix, where they do have the appropriate facilities). TerraCycle accepts almost anything, but their all-in-one boxes are pricey, so it may make more sense to save up big hard-to-recycle stuff like packaging for Phoenix or another big city, if you think you'll drive there at some point. Don't make unnecessary trips just to drop off waste!
9. TRASH: If it can't be composted, reused, donated or recycled, throw it away and make sure that you follow the guidelines for hazardous waste disposal.
10. GOLDEN RULE #1: Make sure that the material is clean. Clean waste streams are more valuable to recyclers, which helps keep costs down. Don't use too much water cleaning up stuff, but don't feel too guilty about using water, either! Dishwater usage is a tiny sliver of household water consumption, not to mention that industry and agriculture generally use much more water than homes.
11. GOLDEN RULE #2: The goal of recycling is to break down your waste into "primary materials" (e.g., plastic, metal, paper, glass) that can be used by industry to make new products. The more mixed your materials, the more you need to research how to recycle it. Knowing the basics goes a long way. For example, I know that metal cans get melted down, so a paper or plastic label attached to the can doesn't worry me because I know that it will get burned off. But what about a milk carton, which is paper fused with plastic? Or the circuitry inside the plastic base of a CFL bulb? If you can't intuitively explain how the thing is going to get broken down into its primary materials, that's your cue that you need to do some research.
12. GOLDEN RULE #3: Knowing the basics of how recycling centers work goes a long way. For example, if you know that you can't recycle plastic grocery bags curbside because they get stuck in the machines, that's a hint that you shouldn't try to recycle your plastic food wrap, either. Or if you know that plastic bottle caps fall through the holes of a separator, that's a hint that you need to research whether your beer bottle caps are recyclable (even though they're metal).

​

Reuse and recycling guide for my home

This is not a comprehensive list of every recycling resource in Tucson, this is just for my house my household's needs. I've found that there's no one-size-fits-all solution if you want to reach close to 100% recycling/reuse, you end up having to come up with a list that's customized for your home, which requires research. I'm providing my list as a potential template as well as for inspiration.
Legend:

• Donation/reuse
  • Cero reuse = Cero's local donation and reuse program (see their guidelines)
  • Glass drop-off = Tucson's municipal glass reuse program, starting on 2/1/2020 (locations listed at the bottom of the page)
• Municipal recycling
  • Curbside = Tucson's municipal "blue barrel" curbside recycling
  • Shredding = Tucson's monthly free shredding program
• Local store drop-off
  • Subaru cups/lids/straws = drop off in the lobby of Tucson Subaru (page for Subaru's recycling program); don't mix with other Subaru recycling
  • Subaru wrappers = ditto
  • Target film = drop off near the front of Target (info I learned about recycling at the Target on Grant); don't mix with other Target recycling
  • Target electronics = ditto
  • Cero stationery = drop off at Cero (program page)
  • Batteries and Bulbs batteries = drop off at a local Batteries and Bulbs (program page); don't mix with other Batteries and Bulbs recycling
  • Batteries and Bulbs bulbs = ditto
  • Gillette = mail-in/drop-off program (there's a drop-off point at Bullets Barber Shop in midtown; note that the Beauty Republic listing on TerraCycle's program page is inaccurate. I spoke with Beauty Republic's owner and confirmed this.)
• Mail-in
  • Rubbermaid = mail-in program
  • TULA = mail-in program
• TerraCycle = all-in-one box (paid)
• Regional drop-off (save up and drop off next time you're in town)
  • The Perfect Block (Phoenix): Styrofoam (program page)

​

• Glass
  • Jars (clean, labels removed): Cero reuse
  • Other: curbside until 2/1/2020, then glass drop-off
• Metal
  • Food and beverage cans (La Colombe coffee cans, soda cans, food cans, etc.; no plastic tops; don't crush): curbside
  • Little plastic top for La Colombe coffee: Subaru cups/lids/straws (see “plastic food containers and cutlery”)
  • Fully empty aerosol cans (whipped cream, etc.): curbside
  • Misc. small bits (nuts and bolts, small tools, etc.): TerraCycle
  • Pringles cans: TerraCycle
• General paper
  • Larger boxes (>6" length, in reusable condition): Cero reuse
  • Mailers (papeplastic/mixed, in reusable condition): Cero reuse
  • Packaging materials (e.g., packing paper): Cero reuse
  • Uncoated (copier paper, clean napkins, egg cartons, etc.; can have glue, tape, stables, envelope windows): curbside
  • Sensitive uncoated (bank statements, etc.): shredding
  • Cardboard: curbside
  • Coated (wax paper, plastic-y type spam mail): TerraCycle
  • Receipts (which are coated paper): TerraCycle
• Paper food containers
  • Milk cartons (w/ cap on, can be crushed): curbside
  • Disposable paper cups (e.g., Dutch Bros): Subaru cups/lids/straws
  • Clean takeout: TerraCycle
• Plastic food containers and cutlery
  • Tubs (yogurt, etc.): Rubbermaid
  • Take-out, rotisserie chicken (usually #5 plastic), ground turkey containers: Rubbermaid
  • Thin clear plastic (some take-out, berry containers from the store, usually #1 or #2 plastic): curbside
  • Single-use water and beverage (Gatorade, etc., w/ cap on; don't crush) bottles/jugs: curbside
  • Disposable cups, lids and straws (Dutch Bros, Solo, etc.): Subaru cups/lids/straws
  • Candy and snack wrappers: Subaru wrappers
  • Potato chip bags: Subaru wrappers
  • Unopened plastic cutlery packages (e.g., from McDonald's): Cero reuse
  • Loose plastic cutlery, used or unused: TerraCycle
• Plastic film and bags
  • Packaging materials (e.g., Amazon air bubble thingies): Cero reuse
  • Grocery and shopping bags: Target film
  • Clean food wrap: Target film
  • Ziplock: Target film
  • Plastic tape (packing, Scotch, etc., with or without bits attached or crumpled): TerraCycle
• Hygiene, health and beauty products
  • Pill bottles (clean, empty, labels removed): Cero reuse
  • Unused hygiene products (new, unopened): Cero reuse
  • TULA brand jars, tubes and blister packs: TULA
  • Razors and packaging: Gillette
  • Toothbrush heads and toothbrushes: TerraCycle
• Electronics, batteries, light bulbs, etc.
  • Small electronics: Target electronics
  • Rechargeable batteries and battery packs (e.g., lithium ion): Batteries and Bulbs batteries
  • Alkaline and other single-use batteries: TerraCycle
  • Bulbs: Batteries and Bulbs bulbs
• Cleaning supplies
  • Used wipes: TerraCycle
  • Non-tub, hard plastic containers (laundry, spray bottles, etc.): curbside
• Other
  • Fabric scraps: Cero reuse
  • Plastic mailers (e.g., those bubble wrap pouches that Amazon sometimes uses; as long as they're clean and in reusable condition): Cero reuse
  • Stationery (e.g., pens, glue sticks, paint sets, flexible packaging; NOT white out): Cero stationery
  • Styrofoam: small items go to TerraCycle, big bulky items (e.g., box packaging) go to The Perfect Block

​

How do I sort all this?

Right now, I'm using a makeshift system of lots and lots of bags to keep everything separate. My idea is to do a monthly "recycling day" and drop off everything that needs to be dropped off as well as mail in everything that needs to be mailed in. I haven't had to do this yet since I started this project.
I hope to build a sorting station in my house once I understand my needs a bit better.
​

Notes on TerraCycle and partner programs

A lot of the corporate-sponsored/mail-in/drop-off programs are done through TerraCycle, a New Jersey-based recycler that specializes in recycling hard-to-recycle things (e.g., potato chip bags, toothbrushes). They make lots of their money through large corporations, which essentially pay them to process unprofitable waste in order to burnish their environmental stewardship bona fides. They also offer paid recycling pouches and boxes to the general public. You mail in these pouches/boxes (they come with a shipping label) after filling them up with recyclable waste.
TerraCycle will recycle almost anything and everything. However, anything that gets recycled through them or one of their corporate programs is shipped to New Jersey for processing, so it's preferable to reuse or recycle locally. They're also not as transparent as I wish they would be. I'm not certain, for example, how much of each waste stream actually gets recycled. They have a customer support contact form that's been very good for getting my questions answered, but beware that they take about 2-3 days to get back to you per request.
I bought the large "all-in-one" box from their site and found a coupon code online to bring the cost down to around $350. I read a review elsewhere from someone who got a medium box (about 50% the size) who said that it lasted her six months. My idea is to use this box as "recycling of last resort" and rely on drop-off programs as much as possible to keep costs down. On the other hand, this makes my life more complicated in terms of sorting different waste streams, so you could simplify by putting waste destined for various drop-off points into a single TerraCycle all-in-one box.
You need to register for free on their website to use their mail-in programs. Many of their mail-in programs unfortunately have wait lists. Of the ~15 programs for which I signed up around two weeks ago, about 8 had wait lists, and I got off the wait list for about 5 of them. So they seem to go through the list pretty regularly. Once you're in, you can print off a free UPS label from the "my profile" section of the site after logging in.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would assume that TerraCycle has a higher rate of recycling than municipal programs, but this must be balanced against the financial and environmental cost of shipping waste to their facilities.
​

Composting

The Achilles' heel in my recycling and reuse plan is organic matter. The City of Tucson has a composting program but it's only open to businesses.
There are a few volunteer-run programs here and there that accept compostable waste. I managed to sign up for one, UA's Compost Cats, and will be meeting them tomorrow to pick up my sealed composting bucket and go over the program rules. I know that they have limited capacity, so you have to email them. They took about a week to get back to me.
​

Am I insane?

Maybe a little 🙃.
​

Shout outs

​

• Marissa at Beauty Republic, who told me about Cero, Desert Rose Collective and her husband's business, Bullets Barber Shop, which has a razors drop-off point.
• Alena at Desert Rose Collective, who makes beautiful household goods from reused local bottles, jars and other materials. (Btw, I emailed her and she explained that she's not currently accepting donations for reuse due to COVID-19, but that in the future she plans to accept glass jars or bottles with lids.)

Hi Guys! After the amazing response i got in other pages from a similar post, "Creative uses for mundane items" i decided to share my research on creative uses for cantrips as well .
The list bellow include some of the most interesting and creative ways to use cantrips that i could find online, or think. Hope you guys find irt interesting and helpfull.
So, without anymore delay.
Ideas for Creative uses for Cantrips.
Control Flames: 1- Make torches last twice as long. 2- Animate the fire of a alchemist fire thrown on a creature to make the fire animate and last up to one hour. ( possibly allowing the damage to last that long unless the creature successfully put it out, at DM discretion). 3- Use a club, staff or mace with cloth and oil on fire, to deal bônus fire damage. You can make the fire burn slowly to last longer, brighter to light the area, or animate it to give your weapon an increased 5ft range of fire damage. Basically giving your weapon a 5ft long fire spike/blade. 4- End fires, possibly leaving entire rooms in the dark, especially useful if enemies don't have darkvision, but you party do.
Create Bonfire: 1- Create a bonfire in a 5ft cube area to scare, damage or light an area that you can see. So if you have darkvision, you can create light within 60ft. 2- Block a path like a doorway or a small 5ft corridor. 3- Create a fire that don't uses fuel for cooking or light. 4- Possibly light objects on fire. The spell target a 5ft cube on the ground and damage creatures in the area, but if other flammable objects are in the area or close, your DM might alow it to deal damage to those objects too, or at least light oil that your throw at the object. Ask your DM about this one.
Dancing lights: 1- Cast it to light a larger area with small spots of light at intervals lighting a large room with a single spell possibly from up to 120ft range. 2- Create a medium light creature that can be used as decoy or distraction. 3- Test the depth of pits, rivers, lakes and wells by sending the orbs into it. 4- Light the way while keeping your party in the cover of darkness. 6- Communication. Send simple messages by using the lights movement or position blinking in specific padrons to give orders, and send messages. Allowing for many more combinations than light, as you can not only move them in any direction, but you can also use 4 lights at once to send up to 64 different pre determined messages by using a 4x4 “imaginary grid” were the light position gives it a value of 1 to 4.
Druidcraft: 1- Leave a natural trail that only your party can identify by making rare or uncommon plants grow in the path. 2- Stealth Communication: After setting up with your party some ground rules, you can use the cantrip to create harmless sensory effects to give them quick messages. Bad specific smell might warn them of a trap or ambush. Cold wind might be “stop”, warm wind might be danger. Etc. 3- You can use it to quickly light or snuff campfires, torches and candles that are up to 30ft away. This can be also used to impress or intimidate some creatures.
Firebolt: 1- A great damage cantrip, with a good range and fair damage die. Unfortunately its also one of the most resisted and immune damage types in the game. 2- One of the few cantrips that can target objects. This one attribute already makes it amazing as you can use it to destroy basically anything that can be damaged. Need to put down a door? Need to destroy a wall? Firebolt. 3- Set objects and buildings on fire. This can be used both as traps, by burning everyone trapped inside, or as distraction as the enemy camp starts to burn and the enemies get to work on the fire to save their supplies and buildings, allowing you and your party to, hopefully, escape in the caos. 4- Can create forest fires, one of the terrain hazards that is described in the DMG. 5- Can destroy boats and ships easily. Or at least reduce their speed by putting their sails on fire. 6- Can be used to light fires and torches, but also oil or gunpowder barrels from distance.
Light: 1- Cast light on a rock or ball bearing and throw it to light any area with your throwing range. Same thing can also be done with a sling, or and arrow/bolt that you can shoot down a hall way to light the path and the place were the arrow hits. 2- Put the target of light inside a map holder to create a cone of light, that you can easily control with the interact with objects. 3- Test the depth of pits, rivers, lakes and wells by throwing a small rock with light on it. 4- Light the way for your martials by casting light on a shield or sword they are using. 5- Have your familiar light the way by casting light on his collar, or have him carry the object with light on it. 6- Communication. Send simple messages by using a light and blinking or waving it in specific padrons to give orders, and send messages. ( Blink tree times if the gates are open. Wave the light if the path is clear, etc).
Mage hand: 1- Apply a grappling hook + rope in silence with no roll to any wall that is under 30ft ( possibly more if you get on top of an ally) 2- Distraction, have you mage hand drop items to create noise, possibly distracting enemies and allowing for you to sneak or or take them by surprise. 3- Interact with objects to avoid danger, open doors that might be traped, take small objects that might have poison, curses or traps, or put small metal objects in traps to jam them. 4- Pick up dropped items and move them away from the creature. 5- Deliver potions or good berries to unconscious PCs from safe distance. 6- Carry a torch/ or other source of light up to 30ft in font of the group, leaving the group in the cover of darkness, while also lighting the way. This also can help the first and second party members of the line to have weapons and shields ready, with no need to carry a torch. 7- Use signs with your mage hand to deliver simple messages (stop, follow, move, here, etc.) 8- Find invisible creatures or objects: Have a piece of twine or rope, and hold one end as your mage hand circle around holding the other end. As the rope move in a cone if a creature is invisible the rope will get entangled and you will know its location, even if it used the hide action.
Mending: Mend back broken seals and envelopes after reading them. Mending egg shells, sealed pottery and secret pockets to hide gold, gems, thieves tools and contraband. Mending the 10ft pole back together after breaking it for easier carry. Mending rope and chains after cutting it into smaller parts. Mending manacles with no key back together for a permanent keyless restraint.
Minor Illusion: 1- Create illusory cover. A 5ft box to hide behind will (in theory) give you half cover until one enemy hits it or disproves the ilusion somehow. 2- Create an object in the shape of a carved message, to send small silenced messages to your part. A wooden “STOP” floats in front of them, followed by a metal “Enemies”. Also you can simply create a miniature “toy” version of a scene you are watching. “5 miniature goblins sitting at a table playing cards ) 3- You can use minor Illusion to make quick sand castles or miniatures of the dungeon map to show your party what your familiar is scouting. 4- Create sound to deliver messages, or create distractions. Can be perfectly used in stealth as it does not have a verbal component and does not rely on sight for targeting. 5- Create a realistic statue of a small creature as distraction, or just a realistic face to show your party who to scry on, who the villain is, or even friends and allies that they might meet that they don't personally know. 6- Need some custom item made? Simply create the image of the item your want in all its glory and show it to the tailor or blacksmith exactly what you want.
Mold Earth: First a warning: Your DM interpretation on what constitutes lose dirt will greatly impact the use of this cantrip. Personally i rule that any gravel, sand or dirt that is not under a building or heavy object (compacted by its weight), or compacted by travel, like roads and paths, is lose dirt. This is my ruling so ask your DM how he rules lose dirt. 1- Instantaneously Open or Close graves: This one is perfect for necromancers. Quickly allowing them to replenish their undead minions with a quick visit to any cemetery. 2- Creating cover: You can either create 2 sources of half cover ( a 5ft deep hole and a 5ft tall mound of dirt right beside it. Or one source of full cover, but having the dirt mound in front of the hole, completely blocking line of sight from most creatures in front of the hole. 3- Open ditches, trenches and canals for irrigation or hiding. 4- Create a super defensive position for yor campsite. Dig a 5ft deep hole all around your camp, and move all the dirt inside, creating a wall of dirt in front of the hole. This will create a 10ft tall wall (5ft hole + 5ft wall of dirt), als also give half cover to anyone that is inside the camp on guard duty. Anyone that is sleeping (prone) will be under full cover from all directions. The Trenched camp also help to hide your fire, possibly avoiding the light being seen from far away.
Shape Water: 1- Fake liquids. Change the color of water to make it look like blood, acid or oil. 2- Animate water to create a menacing small wateice elemental. Fill him with spikes, or give him daguers for hands and he can probably give a very unpleasant hug. Also useful to pick up or drag objects up to 30ft. 3- Animate an ice ball or cylinder to test trap triguers, Possibly also blocking the path if the ball/ cylinder is large enough. 4- Control the flow of water to make a boat continuously move by creating a “wave” to ride on. 5- Control water to block trap mechanisms adn shooting holes and then freeze it completely blocking most traps. 6- Control water in front of a door, and freeze it to Block the door. (might need a good source of water to create a block of ice that is large enough.
7- Create a laminar flow of water that moves in a line to find invisible creatures, as they step on the water and make both noise and small waves on each step.
As usual, feel free to correct me on uses or rules i might have got wrong. And if you have other ideas or uses, feel free to share them in the coments as well, so i can add them to the list later . See you all in the comments and thanks for reading!
For those interested in reading the other post too, this is the link: https://www.reddit.com/mattcolville/comments/lbm707/creative_uses_for_common_mundane_items/

Buckle up for a long tale, TLDR at the bottom.
It's a Thursday night at a seaside restaurant near the end of summer. Not hectic but pretty busy. I'm manning the bar out in our beer garden, making some cocktails, taking orders, the usual nightly fare. I notice a couple of kids that don't seem to have parents in the garden so I'm keeping tabs on what they're up to. One of my co-workers comes out and lets me know that these kids do actually have parents, but they're inside being difficult and won't supervise their kids. All good, I'm usually the one to have a hard word with people, I'll just let them know that kids can't be out the back without parents.
Why is this you may ask? Well, that would be due to the wide-open gate that backs out into a parking lot in which people often fly through, the occasional drunken party that can get rowdy, and the plain and simple fact that servers are NOT BABYSITTERS.
As soon as I catch these kids running up the walkway (another hazard as this is how servers get food out the back), I let them know (politely of course) that without their parents they can't be back here. If it wasn't for the list of drinks I was amassing I'd have gone inside to let their parents know too. As it was I figured that probably freaked them out enough. Until I notice a kid, maybe 3 or 4, just wandering the garden. However, she's with another young girl who I know is with a family dining right outside my bar. And so begins my customer interactions.
Cast: Reasonable Mother - RM, Me - Me, Insane Mother - IM
Me: Hey, I'm just checking but do you know this child?
RM: Ah no, thanks for asking! She's okay with my daughter though
So I figure, cool, I'll smash some drinks out, keep an eye on the kids and return the little one once I've got my orders under control. But then they're both just gone. I know they haven't gone out the walkway so I leave a junior staff member at the bar to take any orders (but not make them), and hightail it to the gate. Lo and behold, there they are, playing around the bins which are right on the edge of the roadside. Right after me comes RM and she is onto her kid, letting her know exactly how dangerous this was for her. At this point, I'm pretty pissed. I've been watching this kid for at least ten minutes and no parent or sibling has come out to even check on her. So I ask her to take me to her mummy, because boy do I have some choice words for her.
And this is where I fuck up. I march into that restaurant to find IM and I'm not thinking about the 'proper' way of doing this.
Me: Excuse me, but do you know where I found your daughter?
IM: She was in the backyard
Me: Actually, she was in the parking lot. We don't have the facilities here to keep track of your children so you really need to either supervise them or keep them within the restaurant with you. Please don't let this happen again
I leave realizing I fucked up. I should've taken her aside because even my softest voice is at best very loud and very carrying. The whole restaurant may well have heard me. And she sure thought so because two minutes later she's in the backyard. She looks worried as hell so I figure maybe she thought her kid was still out there, there was a lot spread out across the restaurant. So being the considerate server I am, I go up to her to reassure her I returned her daughter. And that's where I got it.
IM: YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO YELL AT ME INSIDE THE RESTAURANT, YOU SHOULD'VE TAKEN ME ASIDE AND LET ME KNOW
Me: Your child was in a parking lot. I do admit that I could've handled it better but we really can't be looking out for your children
IM: I DON'T CARE, YOU HAD NO RIGHT. IT WAS INCREDIBLY RUDE
Me: I said I'm sorry but your child was literally on the road, I watched her out here for ten minutes. It was really dangerous.
IM: YOU SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ME ASIDE
I think at this point you get the gist. And hey, maybe she was freaked out realising how much danger her kid was in and it probably was pretty embarrassing to think the whole restaurant was judging you, and so she had to take it out on me. But if you're more worried about strangers judging you than your actual child potentially being harmed or lost, your priorities are well out of order. After a bit of this, she heads back inside and I'm just left there shaking both in anger and stress. Luckily, not all customers are lunatics. Reasonable Mother actually went inside to let my boss know how well I handled it and how grateful she was that I was keeping an eye on the kids.
And so ends my tale. I suffered absolutely no consequences. My boss only said I ought to take people aside for that sort of thing, which I had kinda figured out for myself at that point, and my co-workers thought it was both hilarious and horrifying. IM neither complained to my boss nor left a bad review, although I'm not sure what she could've written. "Rude waitress rescued my child from the roadside and told me to be a responsible mother"??? Idk, doesn't seem too likely. I hope you all enjoyed that rather dramatic encounter, I'll be milking that story till the day I die.
TLDR: Customer refuses to supervise her child in an outdoor part of the restaurant which results in said child ending up in a parking lot that multiple cars speed through. I return her kid to her, let her know where I found her, and am later yelled at for not doing it "appropriately".

Weekly Anti-Character Discussion: Miguel Caballero Rojo

Sections

• Resources: Players, Guides, Matches
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• List of CH Launchers
• Miguel's Punch Parry
• String Variations
• Favorite Moves and Punishing (Neutral)
• Favorite Moves and Punishing (SAV)
• Throw Situations
• Wake Up
• Matchups
• List of Confirmed Followups
• Round-Up

Resources: Players, Guides, Matches

Names to Know

• Sephiblack - Youtube Channel - Twitch Channel

Sephiblack is well known for his Miguel gameplay. He's a very strong player, willing to take some interesting risks to push forwards and establish the close-range respect Miguel thrives off of. He's been playing him for a while and hasn't given up on him yet, and he knows all the little minutia such as guaranteed damage, frame traps, situations, etc. His YT has many matches against known names in the scene, tips on improving your game (though not specifically Miguel) and self-analysis.

• Glaciating - Twitch Channel

Glaciating has a bit of a spotty record, he doesn't like travelling but his presence has been made known in online tournaments. He has been representing Miguel for a long time! A well rounded player with a good intuition.

• Hobbes Obodo - Youtube Channel - Twitch Channel

A very dedicated Miguel main that has put on an enormous amount of long-form content discussing the character's weaknesses and strengths. Don't let the format of this "anti-character" discussion post fool you - if you go to his channel, there won't be a single thing you don't know about this character and you will be able to counter him effectively.
Other Resources

• Applay's Tekken Library - Basic moves, combos, punishes for everyone
  
• Applay's Basic Punishment Guide - 15 moves to look out for against online players
  
• Applay's "Five Moves you shouldn't let MIGUEL get away with" - Self explanatory
  
• Kingjae, Teach Me: Miguel ft. DVK (AFR) - A long and meaty video explaining how to play Miguel
  
• Kingjae, Teach Me: Miguel Top 6 Tips and Secret Tricks ft. Sephiblack - A long video w/ Sephi about Miguel
  
• A guide by a user on the Yoshi Discord that shows jab/flash interruption for all character strings
  
• Miguel Sabaki Parry Quicknotes by Hobbes Obodo - A short but detailed guide on how Miguel can use SAV b+2 when minus to get a launch.
  
• Miguel Command/Move List, Season 4 by Jaber Al Marri - A useful video simply because it includes the updated version of his moveset.
  
• Miguel Framedata, Season 4 by RBNorway - For any specific question I may not have answered or frames I may not have mentioned. If you have the BKNMokujin Discord bot, you can mention the inputs to also get a gfycat video of the move.
  

Matches/Sets

• Glaciating vs Shadow20z, Anakin Invitational Grand Finals - Though this ends poorly for Shadow, these two players have history and he knows by now how to control Miguel's approach, jab his offense back to neutral, and time his low blocks and parries against a very frightening set of lows. ~12 minutes
  
• Glaciating vs Akash, The Danger Room - A FT10 exhibition match that goes 9-10, Akash's Lee is on point but so is Glaciating's Miguel. A very long set but one worth watching to see how Akash deals with a character able to dominate close range and retreat easily outwards. There are also some strange moments that demonstrate some of Miguel's fringe strengths like side-step tracking. ~57 minutes
  
• Sephiblack vs SuperAkouma, Fighting Games Challenge 2019 - A famous set for Miguel players and another one where he wins. That isn't to say that SuperAkouma does not have good ducks against Miguel's strings and SAV string mixups. 13:05, in exchange for a weaker power struggle you get a much quicker set.
  
• Sephiblack vs Glaciating, S4 Mirror - A true treat for anyone looking to learn or fight Miguel. Two of the most prominent players mirror matching each other on the character with two different playstyles (extreme aggression vs extreme defense), and despite the connection being 3 bars, there's no shortage of notes to take. 35:55, with some helpful commentary on Glaciating's plays from Sephi.
  

Strengths, Weaknesses, Playstyle

Strengths

• Good punishment - Miguel's punishers often leave him with good frame advantage, a chance to enter SAV, or decent damage
  
• Meaty Frames - Miguel is able to put himself at a frame advantage on hit and on block fairly frequently.
  
• Damage and Combos - Many of his launch combos are fairly easy and are on the damaging end, while having excellent wall carry options, wall enders, and floor breaks.
  
• Mini Combos - A long list of confirmed mini-combos that make every hit worth double the damage.
  
• Counterhit Launchers - Miguel has a VERY long list of CH launchers (b1, SAV33, b22, b3, SAV11, SAV121, SAVb14, etc etc....) that flow into his kit well, allowing him to persistently threaten the opponent.
  
• Okizeme - It's hard to wake up against Miguel without taking damage, thanks to a Steel Pedal, a hatchet that hits grounded and tracks to his weak side, and a few other moves.
  
• Mixup Intensive - At a close range Miguel is extremely overwhelming thanks to a large collection of fast CH launchers, frame advantage, and the ability to transition into an extremely lethal stance (SAV or Savage)
  
• Safe/Deceptive on Block - Many of Miguel's moves are at first unintuitive to punish, and many players will miss the chance to punish some of his -10, -14, and even -17 moves without labbing.
  
• Difficult to Sidestep - A lot of his core moves are either homing or track to his sidestep weakside, making it require precise inputs to sidestep a Miguel that knows what he's doing.
  
• Long Legs and Forward Movement - While his arms are short, Miguel has some of the longest legs in the game and is able to use this to his advantage in pokes from outside his comfortable range. Many of his punch based moves give him forward momentum that assist him in getting inside the enemy's bubbles.
  
• Decent Throws - Miguel's 2+4, side throws, and his standing command grab all put him in good positions on wakeup.
  

Weaknesses

• Mediocre Defense - If his opponent is an aggressive character as well, Miguel needs to fight tooth and nail to stay on top. While he has three viable panic moves, the lack of variety, evasion, and safety from using them puts him in an easy to bully situation.
  
• Poor range - Although he has some good pokes with good range, he still suffers from issues using certain moves like 2,1 as they have no arm range or forwards momentum. Spacing Miguel with your character's generic df4 can compromise his gameplan.
  
• Sluggish Moves - Some of his better moves can be somewhat slow to come out, like b+3, or f+4, when trying to use them for their intended purpose.
  
• Risky - When you get past the deception some of his moves offer, mostly from matchup knowledge, Miguel suddenly becomes an extremely risky character. (db3,)4 is -18 on block, (SAV 1,2)1 is -17, b+4 is -14, etc. Despite these moves being weird or hard to punish from a glance, they're actually very bad for him to throw out randomly.
  
• No Throw Game - Miguel only has the generic 1 or 2 break throws and a single 1+2 break throw. While he does have Ultimate Tackle, it's not easy to hit and only comes from FC.
  

Playstyle
Miguel has three big things important to his gameplan:

1. Get IN
2. Bully them with mixups
3. Bait them into counterhits

While he has some okay whiff punishment, Miguel shines when he is relentless on the opponent and forcing them to guess between ducking or standing, extension or not, delay or instant. He excels at range 0, but struggles with zoning and can spend a long time looking for openings from his pokes or through whiffs to put the opponent on the ground and begin torturing them. Being hard to sidestep and having a high damage wall combo, he likes putting the opponent's back to one.

List of Counter-Hit Launchers

Q: Why have this section?
A: Miguel has a prolific list of various different CH launchers. Many players do not know the full extent of his moves that can CH launch, so I think it would be appropriate to list them all here for safety's sake.
Click the move name to see a short clip showing it and basic information. Tell me if the links are not working.
Neutral

Move	Properties	Suggestion
b+1	11f, High, -9 on B, +2 on H	This is a very tricky move and one of Miguel's signature panic moves. Although it only hits High, it hits 11f in, making it possible for him to snipe you out of a mixup or a string if you choose to delay. The range is minimal, the recovery is extremely long on whiff, and it's linear. The best option is to duck or sidestep when you think it's coming.
Magic 4	12f, High, -9 on B, +5 on H	A CH launch magic 4, the range has been nerfed in the past, but it remains something Miguel can use at a slightly longer range than b+1 to go for a combo starter. Duck this like you would b+1, or you'll get taken to wall. Common to see at round start.
(b+2),2	16f Mid,-7 on B,+3 force crouch on H	The first hit is a high, but it is Miguel's fastest neutral homing. If you block or get hit by the first hit, it's best to respect it and not interrupt. It's safe but minus, where the alternative is walking into a mid-CH launcher with high damage potential. You should be able to duck and launch.
(df4,1),1	14f, Mid, -10 on B, +7 on H	This move comes from a fairly scary string of Miguel's. If the second hit connects, he's either +6 or -5, meaning he can enter SAV and torture you or enter SAV and punch parry you. The extremely large window to input the final elbow means that he can also bait out counterhits. Because it's only -10 for the whole string, duck the second hit for a WS launch.
(1,2), 1+2	10f, Mid, +4 on B, guaranteed stomp or steel pedal on H	Because Miguel's jab string can end in a punishing high that grants him a chunky followup or + frames, and the 1+2 ending though slow is a + mid, many players are scared to interrupt these jab strings. Ducking and jabbing is the basic counter but can be low-parried on a read, the absolute safest method is to duck and then sidestep out of the way. Difficult, but likely the best option.
(1+2), 1+2	19f, Mid, -14 on B, airborne on H	Although this is a slow move, it has a chunky hit and a huge delay window. The -6 without SAV transition makes it safe to block, and -14 makes it profitable to punish.
(f+3),4	20f, Mid, -15 on B, flip on hit	This string is not extremely good, but the long range and even longer delay window give Miguel players an opportunity to trick the opponent into rushing in. The ease of punishing this string is often underestimated, but not everyone can launch it. Figure out what works for your character based on range and don't let this string abuse you. Natural hit.
(3,)4	13f, Mid, -12 on B, knockdown on hit	The first hit is a fast high, but if you're in close range, be careful. Miguel puts himself at -7 which means no continuation will fork over his turn, but the followup can and will launch overzealous players for a decent combo. Ducking the first hit or punishing the full thing are your options here - be warned that this is a natural hit if the 3 connects and a block punish move.
d+3+4	21f, Mid, -15 on B, flip on H	Miguel's very own steel pedal. Can be hard without wall for some characters to launch punish it. Beware this move on wakeup, as you'll either be on the floor again or counterhit. This move is linear to sidestep but can catch you while rolling.
b+3	30f, Mid, +7 on B, +7 force crouch on H	Because this move gives massive advantage, forces crouch on hit, has a SAV transition, is a CH launcher, and crushes lows, it's a nasty tool to deal with despite the slow speed. A side walk or step to either direction will beat it, but SSR can be a little trickier. Try to backdash or step this move as you do not want to block or be hit by it.
(f+4),2	17f, Mid, -12 on B, knockdown on H, Homing	f+4 is one of Miguel's most important pokes thanks to being long range, homing, and a mid. If you get hit by the first hit the second is guaranteed, while he can also enter SAV at +7. If the f+4 CHs, nothing special happens. Like many of his moves, let Miguel do his thing and don't press buttons if you want a punish or your turn back.
(df1,1),2	13f, Mid, -12 on B, +2 on H	Miguel's df1 series is very daunting to those who aren't familiar with him. With df1 and df1,1 both having SAV entrances and df1,1,3 being a delayable low, all of the variables of this string can confuse players greatly. The best option when this string comes out is to duck under (df1,)1 or wait it out and choose between the low (KND on CH) or the elbow (CH launch) to block. Jabbing the string is possible, but can lead to the punch parry.
b,df4	27f, Low, -15 on B, +8 on H	A weird input, slow low (though it is homing.) This move does not launch naturally. Though it does provide a SAV transition and is long range, it's way too telegraphed and punishable and slow. The best thing this move is for is okizeme, or the pure element of surprise as so few people use it. If you have a 15f hopkick, then your block and counter are the same... All the same, it packs a punch on hit and on counter-hit.

SAV Stance

Move	Properties	Suggestion
(SAV 1),1	12f, High, -9 on B, KND on H	This move is fast, but more importantly it has a diverse set of followups. SAV1,4 is a fast-mid wallbounce, SAV 1,2,1 is a highly delayable string that can end in a launch, while SAV 1,1 is a high-high CH launcher. Because SAV 1 is 0 on block and has two powerful mid followups, dealing with this move can be somewhat difficult at first. If you feel confident, you can duck, while if you think that Miguel is only doing SAV 1 repeatedly to scare you, it can be jabbed. On hit, SAV 1 confirms 1, 2, or 4 followups but not SAV 1,2,1.
(SAV 1,)2, 1	12f, High, -17 on B, Launch on H	Coming from a string with high delay capabilities, this move can be scary to press buttons against. If the second hit is a counterhit, the final hit is guaranteed. Though it has big pushback, it's quite easy to launch this move and shut down players expecting you not to know that it can be launched without wall. SAV 1,2 is -10 if they don't complete the string, so be sure to punish that as well.
SAV 4	15f, High, 0 on B, KND on H, Homing	This move is a fast and mean homing kick, on normal hit it gives SAV df2, while on counter hit it screws. It's fast, but 0 on block, so the best option is to duck this or jab it on block.
(SAV 3),3	15f, High, -9 on B, +3 on H	The first hit of this string is a mid and a set up into Miguel's punch parry. The time between hits can be long, but the threat of a CH high and the ability to go back into SAV for a mid after the first knee makes it somewhat paralyzing. On a read you can duck and launch between the delay, but Miguel is -9 after blocking the high kick so it may be worth it to wait to be safe. Without delay you cannot recover to duck after blocking the first hit.
(SAV b+1), 4	14f, High, -10 on B, +8 on H	SAV b+1 is a 14f mid homing move, that sets up into Miguel's punch parry. It is an extremely dangerous and key move, making the followups safe to initiate. The knee will launch on CH, and give advantage on hit, while the SAV b+1,2 string gives some extra damage. It's -10, so it can be hard to get rewarded for blocking this string, but it's well worth it over what can happen if you press.

Miguel's Punch Parry

SAV b+2, known in the move list as "Tornillo", is a 26f, Mid, -9 on block, +4 on hit punch. However, it has a long window to parry high or mid punches that guarantees a launch. Experienced players will naturally try to jab Miguel's strings, since many of them have long followups or long delay windows, which is where the punch parry comes in. Knowing when this can happen is very important as it can save your life.
Miguel Sabaki Parry Quicknotes - Hobbes Obodo
Active reversal window: i3-i10, or 7 frames
By utilizing frame knowledge we can see how to use this move when minus on block. Essentially, any move up to -7 can be used to set up a parry of a 10f jab, while at -8 you can parry 11f moves (WS punches for instance.)
Common Punch Parry Setup Moves

• Neutral 2,1~f (-4 on block)
  
• Neutral df1~f (-2 on block)
  
• Neutral df1,1~f (-3 on block)
  
• WS+1~f (-3 on block)
  
• ub+1~f (-5 on block)
  
• df4,1~f (-5 on block)
  
• d+4,1+2~f (-8 on block, catches WS+1)
  
• SAV df1~f (-2 on block)
  
• SAV 3~f (-5 on block)
  
• SAV b+1~f (-7 on block)
  
• SAV b+3~f (-7 on block)
  
• SAV 1~f (0 on block)
  

Characters with magic 4s or FC downjabs can counter this move, however they risk eating a followup in many cases like SAV b+1,4 that could be just as deadly thanks to the CH launch property. Be careful and take note as to whether or not the Miguel has used a setup into a parry before or is repeatedly doing setup moves without following up (to see if you jab.)

String Variations

A very pressing issue with Miguel's movelist are the dozens of different ways he can end a string. Entering SAV, or having two different options (usually one as a counterhit launcher) can put a lot of pressure on the opponent to come up with something and get out, but making their guesses very high stakes.
Strings with Multiple Endings

• 1,2,4 or 1,2,1+2

Ducking then sidestepping beats both endings and low parries. Dangerous as they are +3 and +4 (force crouch) on block. WS launching is hard as SAV link shortens recovery.

• df1~f or df1,1~f or df1,1,3 or df1,1,2

Jabbing is the safest for the first two hits (beware the parry), and the low can be parried or hopkicked and the mid can be punished well.

• df2,1 or df2,2 or df2,d2

First is launch punishable, second is -6 and slow, third crushes lows and is only -3 leaving him at position to sidestep. The latter two have long delay windows and slow startups on the second swing that can be jabbed sometimes.

• df4,1~f or df4,1,1

Ducking the second hit is the key to making this string fall apart. If you block it, you can be in trouble thanks to the long delay and punch parry possibility. The final hit is -10.

• db3~f or db3,4

The first hit as a SAV link is weighty at +4 on hit and only -12. The second hit can be done on block and be a devastating, sneaky and chunky round ender. The second hit is launch punishable.

• ub1~f or ub1,4

A set up in to a punch parry or a very plus on hit low, both hits are slow and telegraphed.

• fF2,1 or fF2,2

A safe approach that pushes the opponent toward wall, the fF2,1 variant can be ducked but the fF2,2 is Mid-Mid and -13. I believe this can be fuzzy guarded.

• SAV 1~f or SAV 1,4 or SAV 1,1 or SAV 1,2~f or SAV 1,2,1

This extremely tricky series boils down to two rules: One, never duck as all four endings are -9 or punishable. Two, SAV 1~f is not as powerful as it seems, SAV 1 is the fastest move SAV has at 12 frames, making SAV 1~f risky. If the Miguel is spamming SAV 1~fSAV 1 then you should be able to jab or downjab him. Beware punch parry.

• SAV 3~f or SAV 3,3

It's best to let this one play out. If you block the first hit and the string isn't delayed you can't do anything, if it's delayed you may eat a CH launch, or a punch parry. The parry and the second hit are -9 which leaves you with your turn back.

• SAV d+4~f or SAV d+4,3

The second hit is guaranteed on the first. It's a very fast low but it's likely you'll counter this move while looking for Hatchet. Natural combo.

• SAV b+1~f or SAV b+1,4 or SAV b+1,2

While the mid 4 is very sudden, and scary, it's punishable at -10. The low 2 is much slower and if there's a slight delay you can low parry/hopkick without truly having to react. Beware the SAV b+1~f as this can be a punch parry setup or a setup into the b+1,4 CH launch. A bit of a catch-22 as respecting the SAV b+1 too much will lead to other setups like Hatchet.

Favorite Moves (Neutral)

Applay Basic Punishment Guide - 15 Common moves to see online and how to deal with them
Five Moves you shouldn't let MIGUEL get away with by Applay

f+4,2 | f+4~f

This was one of Miguel's favorite neutral moves since before Season 4, and now it's even better than it used to be with its new SAV transition. f+4 offers a very long range mid homing poke, giving Miguel a tool to defend with when the opponent is at range and trying to get in. It can also offer him a chance to get his own offense started at closer ranges thanks to being +8 on hit and linking to SAV. On hit, the 2 followup is guaranteed and will knock the opponent down. If the opponent presses buttons between each move then they will get launched. Being safe on block ties together this formidable poke.
This move is slow, it's easy to sidestep and still have time to block afterward. On block it is -8, so he cannot punch parry you either. The f+4,2 full string lands at -12.

df4,1,1 | df4,1~f

Coming off of a fast mid knee, this move propels Miguel very far forward on every hit. The delay window between the second hit and the third is very long, giving Miguel an easy fast-mid-CH launch tool. At -5 on the second elbow, he can easily transition to SAV to punch parry you if you think he's going to delay the last elbow. This tricky string eats players alive when they haven't studied the move well.
The first and third hits are mid, but the second hit is a high. There are no other extensions and there is no real delay window between the first and second hit, meaning you can safely duck in preparation for the second hit and get a while-standing launch off. If you block the entire thing, you get a -10 punish.

df3,2

A mid-mid string with decent range on both hits and a little bit of frame advantage to top it off. Commonly used as nothing more than a poke string, careful that you aren't counter-hit as you will give Miguel more frame advantage than he would have on a normal hit.
-6 or so on block with no SAV extension, it's not too threatening.

2,1 | 2,1~f

At Range 0 this is a very powerful move coming out at 11f. Though they are both High you cannot duck the second after blocking the first. On block it will put him at -3, allowing him to sidestep or transition to SAV, while it also functions as an 11f punisher that will put him at a staggering +7 which gives him free reign to enter SAV or do a different move from neutral.
The best solution to this move is to consider whatever counter action you would like to take, and delay it by just a moment. If Miguel side steps you can catch him, and a fast 4 will catch his punch parry. Be careful as he can use the threat of the punch parry to enter SAV safely from being minus, since you might choose to not jab interrupt.

uf+1 | uf+1~f

A dangerous oki tool thanks to being a mid with a low reach and crushing lows. +4 on block with transition to SAV, along with an untechable knockdown, this move is extremely dangerous to go against and will be one of the tools in a more seasoned Miguel's arsenal. There is no good way to deal with this move other than sidestepping as it is extremely linear even to his strong side - the problem then becomes the fact that the closer you are when you sidestep, the farther Miguel sails past you, and the harder he is to punish.

fF2,1 | fF2,2

A favorite move for approach among mid-level Miguel players. fF2,1 is mid-high, but is safe on block and pushes his opponent far backwards giving him the ability to control the space. fF2,2 is mid-mid, but unsafe for him on block at -13. This move is used a lot in combos as the 2 extension gives a high wallsplat and the 1 extension breaks floors. Where people commonly mess up with this move can be boiled down to a few things: trying to hit between swings (don't), underestimating the range on the first hit (DON'T), and letting him get away with a jab punish or nothing on -13 (DON'T). This move can be fuzzy-guarded and easily shut down. If you're near the wall it's linear to sidestep the first hit. Miguel should not be given this free entrance into your space no matter what.
Has a soft feint between swings that can be launched.

db3 | db3~f | db3,4

An insidious kick to the ankles, this leaves Miguel +4 with a chance to enter SAV and only -12 (thanks S4!) on block. The extension is fatally punishable (-19~18), but it is incredibly sneaky thanks to deceptive range and the ability to be used even when db3 is blocked. It is a round stealer and an excellent tool for Miguel to bully players with when they are panicking and making bad decisions. It is -9 on hit, but it does its job effectively most of the time.

b+4 - Panic Move!

Although this move is -14, making it severely punishable on block, it's also an 18f armored mid kick with very long range. Many Miguels will rely on trading with this move as it does a chunk of damage, pushes the enemy very far, and will also bounce them off of the wall. It's an incredibly loaded move that makes for a compelling panic choice, but it's rather predictable and very punishable. Don't let the short blockstun fool you, it gives a lot of damage.

b+1 | b+1~f - Panic Move!

One of his most famous moves. An 11f, high, counter-hit launcher. This move is a fairly predictable, but it is safe (-9) on block. The whiff recovery is EXTREMELY long, even with the link to SAV, and it's somewhat linear. An easy way to avoid the grief that comes with this move altogether is choosing to not finish whatever pressure you had planned and waiting to see if the Miguel is going to interrupt you. Failure to do this can shut down some characters like Hwoarang fairly quickly as the Miguel only needs a split second to send you to the ground.

d+3

Although it's not very glamorous, this is a long range poke that is somewhere in the low 20s for speed.

WS 1 | WS 1~f

At -5 on block, this sets up for his sinister punch parry game. Registering at a massive +8 on hit, but critically lacking range.

WS 4

Similarly unpunishable, this WS4 gives a good chunk of damage while also having a very long range. It's common to expect it coming at ranges where the Miguel is not confident that he can force a block on the WS+1.

Favorite Moves and Punishing (SAV)

SAV db3 | SAV db3~f "Hatchet"

One of the most important and recognizable moves in Miguel's entire moveset, not just Savage alone. Dealing a chunk of damage, tracking to his weakside very well, moving far forwards, hitting grounded, giving beefy frame advantage, and going back into SAV for more mixups make this move a seriously terrifying low to deal with. SAV is full of scary moves, but this takes the cake. Being able to force an opponent to deal with a mid or a low that will eat their shins alive puts them in an uncomfortable spot and is the key to Miguel's Range 0 supremacy. A low parry isn't too satisfying either, considering the damage that's at stake (Miguel can often throw a SAV df2 to get himself a launch between uses of hatchet).
TIPS: This is -13 on block, making it a launch for some. Many Miguel players will open with this move upon transitioning to SAV, and are prone to doing at least two hatchets before alternating to a mid. Many weaker players will not properly mix-up their SAV game when trying to get started.

SAV b+1 | SAV b+1~f | SAV b+1,2 | SAV b+1,4

Thanks to a buff that made SAV b+1 homing, and (SAV b+1),4 a CH launch, it is now one of Miguel's favorite pressuring tools and ways to force respect at a close range. SAV b+1 is -7 on block, making it ideal for the punch parry game, a 14f homing mid which makes it impossible to get away from, and it has a mid/low mixup that can end in a counter-hit launch. As terrifying as this move is, SAV b+1 itself has no real power. The extensions or transition back into SAV are where all of the real power comes from - it's better to defend and let a player do SAV b+1 into itself infinitely rather than try to interrupt it. A hopkick or low parry will beat the 2, while the 4 is -10 and the punch parry is -9. If the player goes into another move, you can go forwards from there.

SAV df2

This move does more than just launch. While it is not considered crouching, it has an insanely low profile, making it able to duck jabs on startup to guarantee a painful launch. It tracks to Miguel's weakside, can track rolls, and flips over grounded opponents. Despite its appearance of having a large amount of push-back, it's -17, and quite punishable. This will be commonly thrown out after Miguel has established frame dominance, typically with his SAV db3, in order to break your blocking defense.

SAV 2

A fast, -9 mid punch. The low profile allows Miguel to go under highs, while tracking to his weakside, wallsplatting for a combo (or a mini-combo in certain situations), it breaks floors, it does good damage, it's guaranteed in a few scenarios, it has decent range, it hits wall slumps, and has an untechable knockdown. This move is an absolute monster, and due to its speed (16f), he can throw it fairly often after a transition or within its maximum range to check the opponent and get inside quickly. The move is extremely non-linear despite its appearance, but being -9 he will give up his turn. Be on the look out, specifically from moves like 1,2,4~f.

SAV 4

A 15f high homing kick that's 0 on block, gives a guaranteed SAV df2 on hit, and screws on counter-hit. If you block this, Miguel cannot transition back to SAV. Jabbing after blocking it will at worst trade with his jab, while ducking it has obvious benefits. Overall the move is not hard to disarm, but typically comes from setups that encourage sidestepping or might push the enemy to press a button in order to escape pressure.

SAV 1 SERIES

SAV 1 series is complicated to deal with. While SAV 1 itself is a high, it's 0 on block, and it has many extensions. SAV 1,1 is high-high, but it gives guaranteed damage and okizeme to Miguel. SAV 1,2 and SAV 1,4 are both mids - the first leaves him -10 on block but advantaged on hit to continue into a mid launcher or back into SAV, the second is an imperceptibly fast mid WALLBOUNCE that is -10 but with enough pushback to completely confuse the opponent as to whether it's punishable at all.

SAV b+2

(See above section "Miguel's Punch Parry")

SAV d+4,3

A 15f low with minor range, the primary strength of this is the chunk it takes out of the opponent (the 3 is guaranteed to my knowledge) while having almost zero animation whatsoever. The animation consists of Miguel moving his back foot forwards and hitting you in the shin with the side of his boot, but his front leg does not move and his upper body stays stiff in the SAV posture. Although it isn't a big move to throw by itself, it's often used to mess with people's heads when they are defending against a mid or expecting hatchet.

Throw Situations

2+4 Generic Throw

This throw will leave you face up, head towards Miguel and switch sides. Waking up here can be incredibly hazardous as you can eat a steel pedal flip for laying down, or since you are backwards, you can be caught by f+4,2 when trying to wake up normally by holding back. Hatchet and SAV df2 can be quickly input to neutralize your side rolls and f+4 will at best trade with you if it isn't used instantly.

Right Side Throw

Miguel puts you off axis and flips you over onto your back. You will be left with him standing to your character's left hip, directly on top of you. This is another disastrous place to be in as your defense is more compromised thanks to a shorter distance allowing him to use basically any low and any mid to immediately compromise you. Notably, he can easily stomp you in this position or force you to wake-up against his steel pedal.

df1+2 Command Throw

An interesting throw, although Miguel has no "true" throw game, this can sometimes confuse players unfamiliar with the matchup due to its animation being similar to his 2+4 grab in startup. While this move leaves you standing, the most CRITICAL thing to note, is that he has not only frame advantage (+4?) but a transition into SAV directly from stance. Meaning that almost all of the time this throw ends, you will be facing an advantaged Miguel ready to throw a hatchet or a mid. The only thing you want to do after this throw is DEFEND. The best you can hope for is trading with SAV b+1 when pressing buttons, the worst is a launch.

Wake Up

Below is a list of some moves that Miguel can use to hit grounded:

• fF,2

Can be used to catch people crouching on wake-up, or get almost no damage on someone staying down. Fuzzy guard on standing wake-up negate its usefulness.

• d+3+4

A heavily punishable steel-pedal, it still has long range and a CH launch property. Easy to roll.

• SAV db3

Miguel's version of Hatchet. This hits grounded, and will track rolls in both directions. It's his primary motivator to get opponents to wake up defending low.

• db3 (db3,4 will hit in certain situations)

A quick little nudge to push the opponent, keep them grounded, and go into SAV.

• d+3

A stomp move that only exists if you are grounded. If you roll and begin to stand, it will convert to his neutral d+3 in real time.

• b,df4

This slow, bizarre move will catch you for rolling or for standing up without defending low. Perhaps the ONLY situation where this move even begins to be useful, as it genuinely hurts to get hit by and if you are hit by it while standing up Miguel will get a huge frame advantage over you.

• SAV df2

Tracking rolls to both sides, launching people who wake up crouching, and flipping people over like a steel pedal for staying on the ground, this is the yin to Miguel's okizeme yang. If you wake up wrong against this move it's one very, very painful trip to the wall and most likely the last one you'll take if you're forced to guess against his wakeup. The risk on block is present for him, but many won't be afraid to take it for the reward.

• db4

A backwards moving low that CHs into a SAV df2. Relatively safe to throw out.

• d+4

Catches rolls but is rather limp for oki.

• SAV db4

A true snake edge, it catches side rolls, and deals a good chunk on hit, but is so slow and easy to get a death block punish on that even if the opponent stood up and ate the snake edge it would not be worth it, as it only gives a mini-combo.

Matchups

Miguel suffers greatly against any character that is able to space him out or take range 0 control against him. Although this sounds like a very vague definition for a character, it's actually something that can affect players of different playstyles.
Miguel will force you to either out-aggress him which can prove impossible if not properly set-up with frame advantage or frame traps, or he will force you to keep him at a range, depending on how you like to play. For some characters who have df4s which can act as mid-range pokes, that might be enough, but it is a low damage option that usually doesn't speak to the invasion the character is used to (A.K., Dragonuv, Bob etc.) despite being effective at disallowing Miguel to play his game.
Getting inside against him through any means, but being able to deal with b+1 and b+4 either through frame traps that are too fast for them to come out, or being able to cancel and wait for a response, also destroy him. His defensive panic moves are strong, but extremely predictable and even more punishable.
Characters who build their foundation on punishing and waiting are the absolute worst matchups he has, as much of his movelist is built on taking risks, like SAV db3 being -13 and being mixed up with a -17 move. A single block against SAV b+1,4 when you have meter is all it takes to kill him in some situations.

List of Confirmed Followups

So you don't get confused, here are some of the times Miguel can get guaranteed damage:

• b,f+1 guarantees SAV df2
  
• SAV 4 normal hit guarantees SAV df2
  
• CH db4 guarantees SAV df2
  
• CH SAV db3 guarantees SAV df2
  
• SAV 1,1 guarantees SAV df2, fF2,1 or d+4,1+2
  
• f+1+2 guarantees SAV 2
  
• 1,2,4 (the 4 hits) guarantees SAV 2
  
• (df1),2 CH guarantees SAV 2
  
• SAV b+3 guarantees SAV 2
  
• FC df+4 guarantees fF2,1 or an entire rage drive combo after WS+4
  
• SAV (b+1),2 guarantees fF2,1
  
• db+1 guarantees WS+4, d+4,1+2 or an entire rage drive combo after WS+4
  
• SAV db+4 guarantees WS4, d+4,1+2
  
• SAV 2 guarantees SAV df2 if the opponent is knocked down as close to the wall as possible without wallsplatting
  
• (df1,1),3 CH guarantees SAV df2 (?)
  

Round-Up

DO

• Keep Miguel at a range by using pokes such as df4 to shut him down
  
• Practice your punishing for moves that are -12
  
• Not panic
  
• Use your own offense to overwhelm his chance to defend
  

DON'T

• Allow Miguel to get in with linear, punishable, or fuzzy-guardable moves
  
• Panic
  
• Let him get away with moves that are visually confusing to punish like SAV 1,2,1 or b+4
  
• Press buttons when he's in SAV, unless you're jab/dickjabbing with extreme confidence
  

This is the first extensive guide or post I've made here. I'm still new to writing content for TEKKEN and to playing the game, including Miguel. I welcome criticisms, corrections, and opinions for how the guide can be improved in any way. This was an independently written guide so I apologize for inaccuracies or biases.
Contact me by PM if any of the visual aides linked fail to respond.